VLC & European Patents

CaptScarlet22 writes " VideoLAN is seriously threatened by software patents due to the numerous patented techniques it implements and uses. Also threatened are the many libraries and projects which VLC is built upon, like FFmpeg, and the other fellow Free And Open Source software multimedia players, which include MPlayer, xine, Freevo, MythTV, gstreamer."

More info

[TripMaster Monkey]

In the interest of stimulating more discussion, some more information about this subject can be found here [ffii.org]

MPlayer too...

[Einherjer]

On a sidenote, mplayer has the same message on its website. have a look: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/index.html [mplayerhq.hu]

More about patents

[Kaamoss]

The general concencious is that software patents are mainly stiffling the ability for new software to be produced. Here's an interesting tid bit about problems with software patents. It's a really interesting read I suggest it. Here it is http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html [perens.com]

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[ShieldW0lf]

Programmers are generally recommended NOT to investigate patents at all. If they knowingly offend, they pay triple damages when taken to task over it in the US (holy mecca of patent litigation)

The generally accepted practice in the business world is build it without having any awareness that it was previously discovered or patented, then have your lawyers look for infringement and negotiate a deal. The developers, engineers, etc are generally prohibited from going anywhere near patents.

Consciously avoid being exposed to other ppls ideas, reinvent the wheel, employ a bunch of people who could be doing something productive to find out after the fact if anyone has invented this before, and then hope that there's enough revenue for your new idea left after you pay to license the patents.

Kind of puts the lie to the whole "in the interests of progress" thing, doesn't it?

a huge step backwards

[qwp]

If this project disappears then it will be a huge step backwards for digital multimedia. On every system I use this is one of the first packages I install. One cannot trust quicktime or windows media players.

it is semi odd that Europe is anti media players in Windows, and then they are threatening to slay free media players. Seams like a double standard.

Re:This is exactly why...

[Bent_MG]

Windows Media Player for the Mac is available here. [microsoft.com]

Re:what about MS patents?

[aetherspoon]

I think you are thinking about trademarks, not patents. Hence why submarine patents are such a big problem.

Re:excellent planning.

[Dr. Evil]

One stitch of GPL'd code and it is forbidden.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [gnu.org] Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

Kopete, too

[praseodym]

Kopete [kde.org] has a warning message on its site as well.

Re:Hosting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter where the server is; what matters is where the people live. Unless the programmers are totally anonymous, they can be sued.

Media Player for Mac

[chazchaz101]

The most recent version of WMP for Mac only plays .wmv and possiblly .asf files. It doesn't work to play .avi files with the video encoded as wmv3 (WMP video). There is no way at all to play these files on a mac.

Re:excellent planning.

[Anonymous Coward]

shouldn't they have checked all these patents and licenses before implementing them?

Well, it's a gray area. Consider the case of Dolby. Back in 2001 [slashdot.org], Dolby sent NetBSD a vaguely-worded letter asking them not to distribute AC3 decoders. But Dolby refused to cite any specific patents, so NetBSD continued distributing liba52/libac3.

Thus, Dolby knows people are distributing AC3 decoders and they have decided not to take any action. Does this constitute permission? Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, arguably yes. But it's still a gray area.

The patent system is screwed!

[grolschie]

The patent system is really [newscientist.com], really [wsj.com], screwed [cox.net]!

Re:More info

[jamienk]

And here [craphound.com] Cory Doctorow of the EFF tries to convince Microsoft to create and release their own VLC-like player... A really amazing read.

Re:Why Ireland?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the tax that MS pays in Ireland constitutes 20% of all tax revenue. That's why bertie & co tried to fastforward the software patent directive as soon as Ireland got the EU presidency.

Re:No threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit.

What about DTS? http://wiki.ffii.org/?Videolan0411En [ffii.org]

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[ardor]

Two names: Acacia and Forgent Networks. They have INCREDIBLY TRIVIAL patents. And they slaughter good, innovative projects just to suck money out of them. These companies do not produce or innovate ANYTHING. They only beat the money out of other companies with their patent portfolio. The very fact that such companies can exist prove that the USPTO is incompetent when it comes to software patents.

Re:MPlayer too...

[dionoea]

the text on the explanation page actualy comes from ffmpeg...

Re:im confused

[Bruce Perens]

Computer programs as such means that you can't patent a computer program, you can only patent using a computer program to do something. Other language for this is that the program must have a technical effect. So, programs that employ a particular algorithm but don't do anything will be protected. This does not seem to be a very useful protection.

Bruce

Think which MEP to vote for in the UK

[horza]

I've writtent to my MEPs.

Conservative party are FOR patenting software. The letter was a disgusting patronising excuse, and tries to worm out at the end suggesting they want a 3-year 'review' clause.
(from Nirj Deva)

Green party are AGAINST patenting software. They also mention consulting with Alan Cox and Richard Stallman. A very well written response.
(from Dr Caroline Lucas)

The Liberal party are AGAINST patenting software. A short letter saying they've heard the fears of small businesses are will definately vote against the directive.

Labour never replied but that is because they are FOR the Directive. Especially since Mr Mandelson, kicked out multiple times from government for corruption, is our EU council representative and has the ear of Tony Blair.

No matter how you want to vote in the General Election, remember when voting for your MEP not to vote Labour or Conservative. Even if some of us HAVE voted for a certain party all our lives :-(

Phillip.

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[Bruce Perens]

If the language of the patent is vague, attack it with 35 USC 112 and have the patent either invalidated or returned to the office for re-examination. If that attack fails, apparently the patent is not vague.

With all due respect, if there is prior art, put it in front of a judge

It's easy for you to say that I should go to court, but the fact is that if I have to go to court, I have already lost. I would have to settle. I can't afford the legal fees to get to the first day of verbal argument. Nor can any other Open Source developer. You should take into account the fact that the courts are a rich man's game before calling FUD on me.

Regarding basics of computer science, there's a recent one from Microsoft on performing a different action if you press a button twice rather than once that should not have been awarded and IMO the filer purjured himself regarding prior art.

Thanks for admitting that you would prefer to only grant non-obvious patents. The fact is that your job should be very different. You should be given a lot more time to consider a patent and go to the library. You should have a real triviality test - bringing a problem before a jury of developers to solve within a time limit - rather than the joke of one that you have now. And the people who send you patents should have real jail penalties for the way that they purjure themselves.

Bruce

Re:Software patents - Splution - Move to Australia

[stor]

I'm Amer^H^oh sorry, Australian.

Our government is a few tiers below the US government wrt authority over Australian Law.

The Australian government has shown that, given the choice of protecting it's citizens or doing something in the US's interests, it will do what the US wants, even when an Australian's human rights are being violated.

The fact that we're not granting frivilous patents here is nice but it's irrelevant if our country is beholden to another country's IP laws. It effectively means that we will be left with fewer patents than other countries and they'll beat us down with their patent portfolios.

Right?

Cheers
Stor

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Failure to check if what you are doing is not grounds for acquittal in the US. What not checking does is allow you to avoid triple the normal damages for willfully doing something illegal. Since the patent system is so complicated it is safer not to check because if you check and miss something you have to pay three times what you would have paid had you remained ignorant. Because of the triple damages rule the risk is much higher to check because you might miss something.

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[Anonymous Coward]

That patent was taken out as something called an 'innovation patent'. An Australian 'innovation patent' is different from a full patent in that it only lasts 7 years and is not examined until a case is brought against it, or the owner wishes to use it in court. At that time, the patent holder must pay for a full examination to validate the patent before it can be defended.

For the aforementioned wheel patent, it would have to be examined before it could be used for a court attack - at which time it would be invalidated by the examiner.

Now, if this had been a full patent we would all be in a world of shit.

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[Anonymous Coward]

A vague patent is a weak patent. I know this because I examine them. Attorneys know this because they prosecute them. If you file for a patent, the last thing you want is a vague patent. If you're sued for infringement, hope beyond hope that it is a vague patent. If the language of the patent is vague, attack it with 35 USC 112 and have the patent either invalidated or returned to the office for re-examination. If that attack fails, apparently the patent is not vague.

This claim I don't understand. Having a few (sw related) patents under my belt I can say with some certainty that the language that comes back from the patent attorney filing is much more encompassing and general than what I sent in the first place. But and that's the clincher, it's not the only language in the patent. They read like: In claim one we claim the whole universe, more specifically, in claim two we claim the solar system, in claim three the sun, earth and the moon. Etc down to the actual invention.

I've been told by our patent attorneys that that's done just so that you can start the litigation process and get the ball rolling. The first few claims will be thrown out (then again you might get lucky) but as there are more (and more specific) claims later, the game continues.

Your claim hat I'd be able to defend (or challenge) this system as an open source developer is ludicrous at best. If they sue I've lost. Even stronger: if they threaten to sue, I've lost.

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[rdenisc]

Many people believe that open-source developpers should not, and actually don't care about patents. That is not entirely true.

Software like VLC and MPlayer know perfectly well that they violate a countless number of patents,

I'm currently one of the members of the VideoLAN project (that is, the official and liable structure, not the developper's community). And I've had a 4 hours long meeting with my engineering school lawyer regarding the DTS Inc. vs ECP IP issue over the publication of libdca by the VideoLAN project.

DTS Inc. holds a patent in Europe on that. It is no secret that, for now, official VLC releases no longer support DTS sound decompression.

It is true that VLC violates many many patents that are valid in the United States. It is no wonder why we have no download mirrors in the United States. We did have offers, but we denied them for fear that the people hosting the mirrors might get themselves into trouble.

and the authors just don't care (and if you really think they all live in Europe, I'd like you to show me "Connecticut" on a map of Europe).

We DO care. It doesn't mean we make sure not to infringe any patents, but we still do care, because we have had problems, and we expect to have a lot more if the EU directive is passed.

Who knows, we might have to remove MPEG2, MPEG4, H264, etc etc. Who would want a VLC media player that can only read Vorbis and Theora ? (that's not to say these codecs aren't good)

The original aim of the VideoLAN project was to stream TV channels over IP. It turns out all digital TV channels use MPEG2 (or more recently MPEG4 or H264). We couldn't even access these...

Any legit project that makes use of their source code needs their head checked, but projects like VLC don't care about infringement. And users thereof don't, either.

Whether we care or not, we have been a target, and we are much weaker than big companies to defend ourselves. We'd be fools not to care.

Re:This is exactly why...

[Alan Partridge]

Yep, VLC is pretty efficient. I use it to play D1 sized .mp4 files on my 500Mhz G3 - QuickTime and Mplayer drop about 10 frames per second - VLC doesn't even max out the CPU.

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a patent examiner as well.

The burden of proof is initally on the examiner, they have to make a prima facie case of obviousness for a 103 rejection, and prior art for a 102 rejection.

The office does selectivly go to court to try and change law, we have an office specifcally for that.