Marc Lavallée wrote:
Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> a écrit :
If it < doesn't > cost to include AVC and AAC into web
browsers/plugins etc., maybe it is/was about Open Source principles?
(Any discussion leads to nothing, because I tend to see this in a
pragmatic way. For others it is about "open lifestyle". The same
people still buy an iPhone or an Android phone, both OS environments
definitively not "open". Linux admittedly is.)
The Android OS is "open", although not entirely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Licensing
Very closely controlled by Google, even if being based on Linux and some
(propietary) hack of Java?
Now I don't hate Android, but what about any Linux where you can't
install your own software? This is supposedly "open"? Not entirely
open? (Laughing...)
(Answer: "Open" for the industry, not user. )
The Replicant OS is a fork of Android, using only free software
(except from some bootloaders and drivers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant_%28operating_system%29
In any case, we probably agree. The difference is that I don't
believe that in this case patents will matter a lot.
IF there will be some 3D audio patent fee, it will be for handset
makers/headpone makers etc. But don't worry about Apple or Samsung,
they won't die.
It does matter; there must be ways to promote and use ambisonics without
playing the games of Apple, Google, Samsung, MPEG LA and other patent
trollers. Here's an interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/
Quotes:
"Apple and Google, the world’s two top innovators, now spend more on
patents and patent litigation than on research and development."
Well, if speaking about patents, the world's top innovators are
companies like IBM et al. Samsung files far more patents than Apple and
Google, BTW. The latters earn their money mostly via software - patents
never were decisive.
Don't write about supposed patent trolls if your sources are "Forbes"
etc. (This is business press, they certainly don't have any real clue
about patents.)
I don't care about Apple's litigation problems. (They had many patents
cancelled, recently. I know this for sure. )
..."small and midsize companies with less than $1 billion in revenues
now constitute 90% of the unique defendants in patent troll suits.
Firms with less than $100 million in revenue represent 66% of the
defendants."
Yeah. If everybody who comes is a "troll", you feel confirmed when you
never pay.
..." a staggering 89% of all patents reviewed by the USPTO are judged
either partly or wholly invalid."
Patent applications, right?
The IETF or Xiph.org would probably demand something completely
patent-free. Think that the "next generation surround" is something
like MP3 or DD+. The first codec is an MPEG standard, the second is
owned by Dolby. By any interpretation or say "standard" :-) , MP3 is
more open than DD+. (Known technological base.)
The "next generation surround" is anything we want, but I hope that
ambisonics will stay patent free.
--
Marc
Now, this also doesn't make real sense to me. Either the patents have
been filed in the past and stay valid, or not.
To claim that the original Ambisonics patents were applied by patent
trolls is what some people would like to hear, but I beg to differ.
They weren't trolls... :-D
Anyway, I still have to hear which patents should apply to HOA... (Maybe
there are some, but it is better to know any real facts than to talk
about patent trolls and FUD issues at night-time....)
Best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
