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."

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[DaveJay]

...or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?

Actually, considering the nature of software patents, I should think we're looking for a place that is more legally forward-thinking...

Greed vs. Societal Advancement

[superrcat]

It should be legal to reverse engineer/use patented techniques when it is used to enable integration and compatibility in a non-commerical manner. Using patents to stiffle integration and compatibility should be considered a violation of fair use.

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents which exist solely for the sake of preventing compatibility aren't "innovation."

One modern video codec is as good as any other. They're just all different implementations of the same basic mathematics. They all produce similar quality from similar file sizes. Businesses do the same stupid thing every time: patent one particular method (which is not necessarily better than any other method) of encoding, distribute EITHER the decoder to recipients or the encoder to content producers, whichever is easier for your business, and thereby bully the other group into paying for the use of your amazing "technology."

Gah. It's all bullshit.

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[Wesley Felter]

During their implementation (which started years ago), they were aware that there were no software patents in Europe.

Given the number and scope of multimedia patents, the only way to clean up any potentially infringing code would involve rm -rf...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Well, I suppose that's one way to kill OSS

[Vip]

You just threaten that it breaks one of your patents, it ties up the developers into looking at the code and the patents. Development will be slower because of tied up resources, and you can attempt to kill it off. Even if the claim is bunk, you still make them lose much development time.

While it's probably not what DTS is after, they really don't compete with MPlayer, perhaps other companies will try it.

I'm just surprised DTS would even bother. After all, if your decoding capabilities are built-in to the most commonly used players, wouldn't that give prospective clients more incentive to use DTS? *shrug*

Vip

Re:Since when did algorithms became patentable

[thanasakis]

Thanks! But isn't it an oxymoron that projects and software that are around for years will become illegal suddenly? I mean, presently, nobody has the ability to patent an algorithm in Europe. So, imagine someone in Europe that has thought of an original algorithm for, say, image compression. He is the first to think of it, but naturally he can't patent it. A year later, a company in America goes an patents the same technology. Now suddenly the EC decides to pass this stupid stupid stupid law. The original inventor would be in danger of getting sued for using something he originaly invented.

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[Nutcase]

Brazil would probably be a good choice.

You can't "clean up" code.

[Bruce Perens]

I don't believe that it is possible for any significant work of software to be non-infringing on granted patents. Unfortunately, you can't prove that your program is "clean" by searching patents. Modern patents are written to be as vague as possible in order to allow enforcement of the patent on the widest possible range of software - including things the purported inventor didn't think of when filing the patent. So, you can't necessarily find a patent that applies to what you are working on, even if the patent holder would be disposed to prosecute you under that patent. You can't determine that you are not infringing a particular patent due to its vagueness, without bringing a suit against the patent holder to determine the issue. And worse, there are so many granted patents on basics of computer science. These things weren't inventions, there is prior art, but given that it costs up to US$5 Million to defend yourself (Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association), you will not be able to prove your innocence.

In other words, unless your company is so big that you can use your huge patent portfolio against all equal-sized or smaller companies, you're hosed. This is a game that only multinationals can win - and that's why IBM and HP lobby for Software patenting in Europe despite their affiliation with Open Source. It's more important to them to be able to dominate the entire computer software industry than it is to work with us.

Bruce

it is time to make a difference and take action

[krunk4ever]

from that site:

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.

Signing petitions [eurolinux.org] will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place [mit.edu] and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council [ffii.org] and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) [ffii.org] and NoSoftwarePatents.com [nosoftwarepatents.com].

Fair Use?

[techfury90]

What I think should be done is patents should be modified to include a "Fair Use" like clause. Under this idea, F/OSS software, as long as its for "personal use" can use patented technology without having to pay licensing fees, but if its sold or used commercially, or if said program is a commercial application, then said program (or the user of it) requires a license. Now excuse me while I go patent this concept....

We need a Sugar Daddy

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that IBM and Sun have made much of their patents available for use in to OSS projects. I would like to see them take the next step and start using their patents to defend OSS projects from other patent holders. "OK, you have a prolem with VLC infringing on your patent? Well don't you use techology XYZ in on of your products? We have a patent relating to that. Surely we could work something out to avoid any... complications."

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't do this.

What you describe is a world where such compression algorithms really become primarily the tool to steal copyrighted works; not unlike Napster and Kazaa.

Sure, there (as with Napster) there might be non-infringing uses - but if the primary use is theft, all the F/OSS formats and algorithms will be made illegal just as Kazaa was. If you'll be breaking laws anyway stealing music why are you squeemish about using the patent-encumbered algorithms anyway.

Please reserve the unpatented/open formats for non-infringing (creative-commons - licensed) movies and music.

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[cillasri]

The way patents work is pathetic... they're only useful to have a couple of lawyers working all the day and getting rich based on the work of others.

Re:Well, I suppose that's one way to kill OSS

[evilmonkey_666]

I'm just surprised DTS would even bother. After all, if your decoding capabilities are built-in to the most commonly used players, wouldn't that give prospective clients more incentive to use DTS? *shrug*

No, because DTS sells decoding licenses on a per unit basis. If they stand by and let VLC use it for free, then the big boys like Sony and Pioneer will see no reason to pay for their license either.

It's not about competing with OSS. It's about protecting their revenue because they make money on the decoders... not the content.

Many of you still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long term there is NO WAY we can keep the EU or any other part of the world from approving patents on software, because politicians will always care about the interests of whom/what put and keep them in place, ie corporations not common people. The point is that we're slowly approaching the critical level where the concepts of doing "the right thing" and "the legal thing" take opposite directions and become mutually exclusive until we'll be forced to make THE choice.
The real question is not if, but when the moment arrives, are we ready to act as pirates? Because that's the point "they" are leading us to.

Re:what about MS patents?

[tzanger]

This is incorrect. You're thinking of trademark law. In the United States (and presumably elsewhere), patents can be selectively enforced to the heart's delight of the patent holder.

Which is, IMO, one of the biggest failings of patent law. It allows the patent holder to sit tight until someone with a lot of money (or political differences) comes along and only then "pounce". Hardly the spirit and original intent of patents.

No threat

[NekoXP]

This website plastering is just scaremongering, FUD of the worst order, to
try and make people run off frightened and contact their local politicians
about it.

Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit. If anyone wants to use
the code commercially they will no doubt buy a license to do so, the advantage
here is that there is a simple way to get some working code, which allows more
people to get to a point where they need to license.

It's a distinct advantage to patent holders (no requirement to maintain their
own source code base etc., and an entire market of willing customers which
would otherwise not exist) and the patent holders know it.

Neko

I think the FAQ misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

In that faq linked to from the main article, it doesn't discuss the fundamental problem between software patents and "normal" patents. Sure, patents patent an "idea" but not the actual process. Patents protect the idea to carry out a process, not the process. For example, James Dyson invented the duel cyclone vacuume cleaner, and patented the idea. He didn't come up with the idea (process) of sucking up dust from the ground and putting it into a recepticle.

This is what I feel is the main problem with software patents, they patent the actual process, NOT the way the process is actually carried out by the code. eg. method by which text is highlighted in a document by encasing the text in quotation marks... This is a process, the way it's implemnted is the patentable bit, the actual code use.

Obviously you'll need programmers to compare code to make sure people aren't simply copying it, but surely this isnt a problem in closed source anyway?

It's like Ford making the first car, and then Toyota making a car... "hey, you're infringing my patented idea of motorised transport!" Where the hell would we be now if this were the case? Ford would be very rich....

Re:im confused

[Flyboy Connor]

What you must keep in mind with such speeches is that they are designed to convince people to vote for something on the basis of what the speech claims that something is about, while it is really just the opposite. That is exactly what is happening with the patent directive in Europe. Everybody claims that they are against software patents. But half of the politicians say that you should vote against the directive because it allows software patents, while the other half says you should vote for it because it doesn't allow software patents.

Now, I would say that if indeed all these politicians are against software patents, they should add a rule to the directive that states "Software patents are not allowed". Instead, you get lawyer-speak.

So, does the directive allow software patents, or doesn't it? It is actually not so difficult to determine. The big companies that are very much in favour of software patents, want this directive. The directive has been designed by patent lawyers who have much to gain by allowing software patents. And the European Patent Office is very actively lobbying for this directive, while they are also very much in favour of software patents. It seems pretty clear to me what this directive is about...

Re:No threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because nobody is holding a gun to their head doesnt mean there isnt a threat.

If a person is walking around the streets (the software industry) carrying a gun (a patent) and is willing to use it (litigation) then I think all the bystanders (software developers) dont need to be specifically threatened to be worried for their safety (existance of their project).

Would you feel safe if some random crackpot was waving a firearm around the streets?

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

[lakeland]

If you are sued for infringement, then you have lost. End of story. The cost of invalidating a patent is so high that it cannot be afforded by anybody. So, if you are sued, you are screwed.

I would like to repeat this ten times to drill it into your head, but I will save space and just repeat it once. In the world we live in, being sued for patent infringement will destroy your business and your life. Ordinary small business do not have the resources necessary to invalidate any patents. The ONLY way to save them is to not grant them in the first place.

Now return to your scenario. Is it better to have a vague patent, or a non-vague one? Clearly the vague patent is better, because it is easier to start a lawsuit. Sure, you'll probably lose if they fight -- but who cares, only one in a hundred is stupid enough to fight.

I suppose you could argue that in a hypothetical world where the legal system was affordable, this would not be the case. Well, sorry. We don't live in a hypthetical world, and we write rules to fit with the world we live in.

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

[stor]

Did you know that IBM held a patent for highlighting an input field in a user interface to indicate to the user that the field is mandatory? ...

You can trust that I sleep just fine at night, mainly because I see first hand that the vast majority of the Slashdot/geek/media communities' complaints about the USPTO are, at best, baseless.

Hmm?

We claim: "The USPTO grants ridiculous software patents"

You claim: "The USPTO grants ridiculous software patents"

From what you say above it seems the /. crowd are fairly accurate.

Cheers
Stor

You all have the Power to change This

[Anonymous Coward]

My Solution to to put an end to all these corporations,and governments that think they own your ass and your computer.

solution #1 Take out microsoft -quit buying their fucking products.

Solution #2 Take out Riaa -quit buying their fucking products or downloading them.

Solution #3 If they can't sell what their patenting , they won't use patents anymore.

They want your dollar thats it,bottom line, and thats all they want, they don't give a flying fuck about you.

If we would all do this, in 6 months we would have nothing to discuss on slashdot.

Thank You
Gunillablue

ps:The real power is in your hands.

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

[BlueWonder]

I hold a degree in both CS and mathematics.

[...] Also, I'm a patent examiner.

Can you explain to me how it could have happened that the USPTO has granted a patent on something which is mathematically impossible? I'm thinking of the compression algorithm which claims to losslessly compress any input to a smaller size, in a way that the process is reversible (US patent #5,533,051).

Seriously, if you can think of any explanation besides incompetence of the patent examiners how such things can happen, please offer it.

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

[acegas]

I have no idea how you can review 200 patents in a day and be able to deeply understand them and their implications, much less do the research necessary.
Props for giving us an inside look though

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

[Benanov]

Did you know that IBM held a patent for highlighting an input field in a user interface to indicate to the user that the field is mandatory?

And that patent is obvious to practitioners in the field...

question for the pro

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

#5,249,290, assignment of client requests to the server process having the least load.

#4,924,411, A word processor that has a feature that allows you to specify that a portion of the text should be shaded - such as may be useful when revising a manual - by enclosing the relevant text within commands that turn shading on and off.

They're just examples of course. Maybe they're not obvious, but to a layman they just sound... very, very wrong.

It would be nice to hear a professional opinion: Were those patent decisions correct at the time they were made, and can one really defend their continuing existence now?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have to get through several months or even years of expensive discovery first. Most likely you will not be able to afford the teams of lawyers necessary to meat various deadlines and you will lose by default.

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

[Wolfbone]

"With all due respect, I'm quite familiar with the basics of computer science. My areas of expertise include computability and algorithm analysis. I have spent more time staring at FSMs and models of computation than any human should. Do you mind sharing some of these granted patents on the basics of computer science? I look at anywhere from 5-200 computer-related patents every business day and have yet to find them. (Cue the requisite jokes about a patent examiner's inability to find something *rimshot*)"

Rather than fill this post with links to a myriad RLE and other compression patents, discrete transform patents, Djikstra algorithm variants, memory management algorithms etc. etc. I'll just say this: Congratulations! - it's not every day one comes across someone who knows more about computer science than Donald Knuth. [mit.edu]

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

[Pete]

High-profile people do have a higher chance of being modded up because moderators notice their name.

But the related side-effect is that high-profile opensource people are usually more likely to write lucid, intelligent, and possibly even well-informed posts. Usually because if they bother to post to slashdot at all, it's on an area of interest. And it appears patents, especially software patents, are interesting to Bruce.

But in regard to the geek-patent-examiner-AC's comment - well, he did put a smiley at the end of the sentence. Ha-ha only serious. The only minor shot he was taking at Bruce's comment was that he thought it contained some FUD. And he (the AC) actually backed up that opinion with some actual evidence (rare on slashdot, I know).

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you don't respect them. And conversely, just because you respect someone doesn't mean you must agree with them on everything.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[Sanity]

I am the CEO of a software development company and I have personally been forced to decide to keep my company from innovating in particular software markets due to patents on obvious techniques (*cough* Acacia *cough*), not because these patents would survive a court challenge, but because we couldn't risk going to court in the first place with such a well-funded adversary. My point is that the harm is very real and it is starting to touch the activities of many many software engineers.

Maybe I was a little ambitious with the use of the term FUD but I stand by everything I said. Yes, patents are a rich man's game. That's part of the cost of doing business in the US.

But don't you see that this is the crux of the matter? Getting dragged into court just for trying to innovate shouldn't be a cost of doing business in the US any more than getting dragged before the Spanish inquisition should have been a cost of doing science in the middle ages.

The fact that it is a cost of doing business is a failure of patent law to meet its constitutional mandate to further the progress of science and it is and will continute to hold back innovation in the US and other countries where patents on software are permitted.

Software doesn't need patents, copyright provides ample motivation to software developers. The only people I know that have sought software patents only even thought of doing it after they had developed their "invention", thus the patent did not serve as a motivating factor for them, meaning society suffered the cost of the patent monopoly with no benefit in return. In my experience this is always the case with software patents.

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

[SillyNickName4me]

Since you seem to be well informed and actually involved in this process, you might be able to answer some questions here:

> Did you know that IBM held a patent for highlighting an input field in a user interface to indicate to the user that the field is mandatory?

Could you explain why in the world that patent was granted? There is no check on something being obvious anymore? Or does the fact that something happens to involve a computer automatically make it new and non obvious?

Just to be utterly clear here, hilighting mandatory fields on a paper form has been used for longer then computers exist.

Could you explain how Microsoft managed to get a patent on using xor to make a cursor blink? (this is an obvious method for anyone who ever did a little bit of assembler coding at the very least)

Can you explain the famous Amazon one click patent and it not being dismissed inmediately because of being utterly obvious? (this seems to be the most valid one of the 3 mentioned in this post actually)

Can you point us at any software patents that actually comply with the requirement of providing enough information so that a practiser in the field the patent applies to can reimplement it based on the text of the patent?

Thanks for your corrections but it still makes no sense at all.

GSteamer's good but your post is not as good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Thomas,

First of all I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that Fluendo are working hard to support proprietary plugins. Hopefully this will work out and will have a happier ending than other commercial forays into open source / commercial collabortion. Of course what will be interesting is what the eventual licence of these plugins will be (if I pay for a plugin on one distro and I migrated to a free solution do I have permission to copy my plugins across too?)

However I take issue with some of the points in your post:

It is no coincidence that projects like mplayer, vlc, and xine do not get shipped by most distributions...
Xine was shipped by SUSE (at least up to 9.2) and Mandrake/Mandriva (up to 10.2RC2) last time I checked. Red Hat are not the be all and end all.

GStreamer platform is pluggable to the point where the libraries can be put in or taken out without breaking the applications
Both SUSE and (old) Mandrake (watch out Mandriva) shipped Xine without potentially dubious plugins. A while ago I added Theora after the original install.

(If the BBC can do it [make content available in free formats], so can they :))
Are we thinking of the same BBC [bbc.co.uk]? The BBC I'm thinking of does not make much (Radio 1 [bbc.co.uk], Listen to 6Music [bbc.co.uk]) of its content available on free formats. Where are you getting this from? Last I saw the BBC had dropped its ogg trials [bbc.co.uk] never to return. This is surely a damning example of how Free media formats are doomed to failure. Nice to see Novell using those Free media formats [novell.com] too eh?

I concede that there is a slim chance such formats may become popular on devices like mobile phones but I think between patents and big media companies if they did get a toehold then they would eventually be squeezed out.

The basic problem though is that people (big or small) don't want to provide content in formats that most people can't already play (notice the shift away from RealPlayer towards Windows Media). Without DRM support and the promise that it won't be broken (whether those promises can be kept or not) there is no reason for big media to look at Free formats and almost no Free media format will have critical mass like MP3 did (which itself was not Free). Grassroots stuff is nice but most people aren't listening/watching it and don't really care to.