Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Thomas Daede]

On 11/15/2015 10:34 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> My understand is that Opus excels at lower bitrates; above 100 Vorbis is
> better.

Opus is always better - but at high bitrates, artifacts become so
imperceptible that it doesn't matter too much which codec you pick, so
you might still pick Vorbis for greater compatibility.

> In any event, are the same FUD tactics that were used against
> Vorbis applying to Opus - and with the expiration of the MP3 patents I
> would think those arguments would now be moot... but I'm sure there will
> always be some excuse.

As has been seen, the threats against Vorbis were all hollow. If your
claims are baseless, it doesn't matter if the unspecified patents are
expired or not :)

In general, Opus adoption has been very fast compared to Vorbis because
it is vastly better than other options in the low-delay niche, and is
mandatory for WebRTC.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Haïkel  wrote:

> Besides, determining when a patent expires is not that easy and Fedora
> Legal is backed by skilled lawyers that said the contrary. Unless Fedora
> Legal confirms your theory (which I doubt), it's useless to discuss this on
> this list.


Yeah, this is an issue for Fedora-Legal list, but is interesting
nonetheless.  Looked like from the previous email that there were still a
few patents that don't expire until 2017.  The first thing that actually
popped into my mind was the argument that was always used about Vorbis,
i.e. "businesses are afraid to use it because of potential infringement
issues" - which I always thought was just a bunch of FUD.  That said, if
MP3 patents are expiring what is now the excuse for people not using
Vorbis?  It's obviously a better solution and uses less bandwidth for the
same or better quality.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Naheem Zaffar]

People have moved past vorbis and into the world of Opus. Even MP3 is more
for the vast amounts of legacy content - most current content will be AACL.

Saying that, as a no-lawyer, it did seem last time that I looked that many
remaining patents after September 2015 were for encoding processes, but as
always the actual lawyers who have had a chance to research this would know
better and for the rest of us, it isnt too too much of an encumberance.

On 15 November 2015 at 16:54, Gerald B. Cox  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Haïkel  wrote:
>
>> Besides, determining when a patent expires is not that easy and Fedora
>> Legal is backed by skilled lawyers that said the contrary. Unless Fedora
>> Legal confirms your theory (which I doubt), it's useless to discuss this on
>> this list.
>
>
> Yeah, this is an issue for Fedora-Legal list, but is interesting
> nonetheless.  Looked like from the previous email that there were still a
> few patents that don't expire until 2017.  The first thing that actually
> popped into my mind was the argument that was always used about Vorbis,
> i.e. "businesses are afraid to use it because of potential infringement
> issues" - which I always thought was just a bunch of FUD.  That said, if
> MP3 patents are expiring what is now the excuse for people not using
> Vorbis?  It's obviously a better solution and uses less bandwidth for the
> same or better quality.
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Naheem Zaffar 
wrote:

> People have moved past vorbis and into the world of Opus. Even MP3 is more
> for the vast amounts of legacy content - most current content will be AACL.


My understand is that Opus excels at lower bitrates; above 100 Vorbis is
better.  In any event, are the same FUD tactics that were used against
Vorbis applying to Opus - and with the expiration of the MP3 patents I
would think those arguments would now be moot... but I'm sure there will
always be some excuse.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Haïkel]

Hi,

You should have contacted fedora-legal list on that topic.
Besides, determining when a patent expires is not that easy and Fedora
Legal is backed by skilled lawyers that said the contrary. Unless Fedora
Legal confirms your theory (which I doubt), it's useless to discuss this on
this list.

Regards,
H.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

[Joshua J Cogliati]

I believe that the current status of mp3 is it is patent free in the US
and most or all of the rest of the world. Analysis after the quoted portion.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:36:07 -0400, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:47 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> What about US?
> 
> The Fraunhofer/Thomson patents have not expired in the US.
> They are not willing to give us an unrestricted patent grant.
> 
> US Patent 5559834 expires September 24, 2013
> US Patent 4942607 expires February 3, 2008
> US Patent 5812672 expires September 2, 2015
> US Patent 5579430 expires November 26, 2013
> US Patent 5321729 expires June 24, 2011
> US Patent 5706309 expires January 6, 2015
> US Patent 5227990 expires July 13, 2010
> US Patent 4821260 expires December 16, 2007
> US Patent 5214742 expires May 25, 2010
> US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018
> US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016
> US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016
> US Patent 5701346 expires February 2, 2015
> US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017
> US Patent 5384811 expires January 24, 2012
> US Patent 5736943 expires April 7, 2015
> US Patent 5742735 expires April 21, 2015
> US Patent 5455833 expires October 3, 2012
> 
> In addition, Alcatel-Lucent holds patents which may relate to MP3 and
> MPEG encoding. This is still pending appeal (Alcatel-Lucent v
> Microsoft). It is not clear whether they will give out an unstricted
> patent grant.
> 
> US Patent 5341457 expires Aug 20, 2013.
> US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023.
> 
> ~spot

Here are the ones that either the analysis or mine think are
still unexpired (I am assuming we can consider the rest expired):

US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 -> December 30, 2014
US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023. -> May 6, 2014
US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 -> January 14, 2011

US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018 -> February 19, 2017
US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017

Here is why I think 5703999 is expired:

Patent:  5703999
Filed:  18 nov 1996  Granted:  30 dec 1997  Expiration:  32 feb 2015
Summary:  Process for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage
of digital signals from several interdependent channels  Notes:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5703999 file+20:
[2016, 11, 18] related_patent+20:[2015, 2, 32]
Expiration date listed as November 18, 2016, but it is a continuation of
a patent filed May 18, 1993.  Expiration date should be 17 years from
1997, or Dec 30, 2014

Here is why I think RE39080 is expired:

Patent:  RE39080
Filed:  22 sep 1994  Granted:  06 may 1997  Expiration:  06 may 2014
Summary:  Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder/decoder  Notes:
Reissue of 05627938 filed 13 aug 2002 granted 25 apr 2006
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=RE39080 file+20:
[2014, 9, 22] related_patent+20:[2008, 12, 32] grant+17:[2014, 5, 6]
Expiration date listed as April 25, 2023.  It is a refile of a
continuation of a patent first filed in Dec 30, 1988.  Original patent
issued May 6, 1998, so expires 17 years or May 6, 2014.

Here is why I think 5924060 is expired:

Patent:  5924060
Filed:  20 mar 1997  Granted:  13 jul 1999  Expiration:  14 jan 2011
First Date:  14 jan 1991
Summary:  Digital coding process for transmission or storage of
acoustical signals by transforming of scanning values into spectral
coefficients  Notes:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5924060 file+20:
[2017, 3, 20] related_patent+20:[2011, 1, 14]
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/650,896,
 filed on May 17, 1996, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of
 application Ser. No. 08/519,620, filed on Sep. 25, 1995, (now abandoned)
 which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/977,748, filed on Nov.
 16, 1992, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser.
 No. 07/816,528, filed on Dec. 30, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a
 continuation of application Ser. No. 07/640,550, filed on Jan. 14, 1991,
 (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No.
 07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991, (now abandoned) as international
 application serial No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987, claiming
 priority to foreign appl. No. P3629434.9, filed Aug. 29, 1986.
Expiration date is listed as July 13, 2016, but it is a continuation of
a patent filed 1991 and it was continued after 1996, so it expires 20
years after the first file date, or January 14, 2011


That leaves US PATENT 6185539:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6185539

and US PATENT 6009399

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6009399

First of all, these were both filed in 1997.  Since the Final MPEG-1
specification (as ISO/IEC 11172-3) was published in August 1993 the
patents were filed well past the August 1994 cut off date.  Secondly,
looking at the claims, (and I am not a lawyer)  6,185,539 seems to be
discussion MPEG-2, and 6,009,399 seems