[MEncoder-users] Free of patents codec

[Raphael]

Michael Niedermayer wrote:

>Hi
>
>On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:31:17AM +0100, Raphael wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>>>>>about theora, well lets try wikipedia:
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora
>>>>>>----
>>>>>>While VP3 is patented technology, On2 has irrevocably given royalty-free
>>>>>>license of the VP3 patents to all of humanity, enabling the public to
>>>>>>utilize Theora and other VP3-derived codecs for any imaginable purpose.
>>>>>>----
>>>>>>and yes vp3 == theora
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>This is pure propaganda. One cannot grant any type of license, much
>>>>>less permenant/royalty-free/irrevocable, on patents held by third
>>>>>parties who are quite hostile to such things. :)
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>well, why not fix the wiki then?
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>1, i don't have wikipedia account and don't feel like getting started
>>>on a new form of crack..
>>>2, i suspect correcting this misinformation will just bring huge
>>>flames. :( attacking xiph/theora is like attacking scientology...
>>>      
>>>
>[...]
>  
>
>>I am already regretting saying this but... who are the third parties in 
>>the case of VP3? Are these unnamed theoretical third parties or some 
>>specific group that On2 is in deniable about?  Also, I am not sure a 
>>    
>>
>
>it is not our job to check theora against patents,
>

Well, you did make a quite a strong claim about patents and theora so it 
is reasonable to ask for the basis of the claim.

>even though i think
>the infamous vlc-rle coding patent with which jpeg was attacked might cover
>theora too ...
>  
>
Interesting.  That patent runs out in October 2006 I believe but of 
course there may be others.

>and most important i dont claim that theora is covered by third party 
>patents i just claim its likely covered 
>  
>
[..]

Right. Unnamed theoretical third parties.

>  
>
>>clear distinction is being made between patents that appear in the 
>>record (i.e. were accepted by the patent office) and patents that have 
>>any chance at all of standing up in court.  There are plenty of patents 
>>on the books in the US that are clearly indefensible.
>>    
>>
>
>yes, there is a huge difference if you are a large company like microsoft
>
[...]

The point is basically that the patent status of an invention or idea 
can never truely be known in the US  and only those with big pockets can 
afford to play to risky game of innovation due to the outrageous costs 
associated with defending any action. Even if you win you need to have 
survived long enough to claim your winnings.

We are in 100 percent agreement. Move country... :)

Raphael

P.S. Can you buy patent infringement insurance yet?