Brian,
i see, i didn't really catch the comprehensive terminology of the word 'encoding' that said, for some reason this patent appears extremely broad, as if they are trying to patent a software methodology for any media codec container, which AFAIK is what a specification is supposed to be for. could be wrong of course ... - Eric On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 9:05 PM Brian Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote: > The 'T' in "FFT" stands for Transform. This patent is not about the > transform, but about the encoding of the frequency data. FFT libraries, > whether open source or closed, do not encode the raw frequency data. FFT > libraries store frequency domain data in an array of complex numbers, > without any meta data or other encoding. > > This would be equivalent to the difference between RAW audio sample files > with no headers, versus AIFF, RIFF/WAV, CAF, or other encodings of the > audio samples. It's far easier to share audio using standard file format > encodings. > > The patent even cites graphics file formats as an example. Raw pixel data > is difficult to process without standard formats to encode the data and > metadata. > > Caveat: The language of patents is often distinct from the terms used in > engineering. So, it's possible that I misinterpreted this patent. > > Brian Willoughby > > > On Sep 1, 2021, at 14:39, Zhiguang Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey music-dsp list > > > > > > Any idea why someone would want to patent essentially what an open > source FFT library (and I can name several) does? > > > > https://patents.google.com/patent/US11024322B2 > > > > Disclaimer: this US patent is from a previous employer > > > > > > -ez > > >
