VLC & European Patents 421
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."
what about MS patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
Weren't they aware of this during implementation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather we just do away with patents entirely, but it's a fact that Europe will buy into this system sooner or later. Maybe now's the time to clean up any potentially infringing code or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?
Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what about MS patents? (Score:1, Interesting)
*If* MS holds patents where the subject matter is being used in an Open Source project and *if* MS does not grant an Open Source license or some other action like a cease letter, then said patents become worthless. If a company knowingly allows infringement, then they cannot enforce the patent. You either enforce it on all (via licensing, etc) or you loose the right.
this patent madness (Score:4, Interesting)
Let us get the names of those entities that are threatening with software patents. I will be very willing to join the effort to turn these companies the SCO route. My fear though, is that VideoLAN and other OSS companies will simply shift production to Asia where patents are not that well respected. This will mean that the US will be left behind. We are not doing that well in cell phone technology already. Asians and Europeans seem to be very advanced. We all know that the cell phone technology we are now getting as Americans is kin-of old if one compares it with what the Asians are doing now.
Re:Since when did algorithms became patentable (Score:3, Interesting)
patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
if i see a video stream, and decide to write a program that takes any chuncks of "000000000" and replace it with a "01", and so forth, and that is my way of compressing a file, but someone else programed that before me and filed a patent, does that mean i can't use that kind of code?
it is stupid to me to have patents on things that anyone can think up. what happens if a professor at a university thinks up something, but does not patent it. he teaches it to students, and they are free to use it. 2 years later a start up company in california has an employee who thinks up the same simple idea, and has it patented. what does that mean? that the original professor can no longer use it? that his students who might have used that idea in projects now have to remove it?
what is the purpose of patents. it seems to be very anti-competitive, and creates monopolies.
The solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what about MS patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can enforce patents selectively.
The GPL clause which forbids distribution of code with additional restrictions, including patents, makes it utterly worthless for most companies to persue GPL'd software for patents.
If Microsoft wanted to anihilate Linux, I think they could very well do this. But... much of the rest of the industry would unload their patent arsenals on Microsoft until they relented...
Hosting? (Score:4, Interesting)
Patents... (Score:5, Interesting)
LAME is already illegal in the U.S. because it did MP3, and I suspect the rest of these projects will be killed off for similar reasons.
I'm not suprised - when you look for "free mpeg-2 decoders" you don't find much. Well, you don't find anything that is gratis. After careful research you find that open source projects are doing a lot of mpeg-2 work, but they usually don't advertise that fact.
I didn't say it was "right", but it's not suprising. Really, you can't do anything with SVCD or DVD on Windows without owning a MPEG-2 decoder. If I was someone who made money on selling MPEG-2 codecs, I'd go after VideoLAN too. It's a lucrative business.
im confused (Score:5, Interesting)
"Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal, since Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programs or other software as such. It means inventions that make a technical contribution and that are truly novel. Such inventions are present in a number of everyday consumer goods such as cars, mobile telephones and domestic appliances. The Commission's intention in making its proposal was to avoid the patenting of pure software and make a clear distinction between the European Union and the United States. Nothing that is not patentable now will be made patentable by the directive.
The current rules in the European Patent Convention leave patent examiners very wide decision-making powers. There can be different interpretations as to whether an invention can be patented. This leads to uncertainty for businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are negatively affected by the lack of clarity in the existing rules.
I would like to remind Members that, in the absence of a directive, patents will continue to be granted. If patent offices decide to grant patents for pure software, then expensive procedures before the Courts will be the only option for those who wish to object.
Those of you who have been directly involved in working on this proposal know as well as I do that this is a very complex area. Any modifications will need to be carefully examined. The directive cannot be turned on its head. We need to maintain a proper balance between stimulating innovation and making sure competition is not stifled."
I'm a little confused...
Bingo! (Score:2, Interesting)
IP law (and economies that suffer under it) is an utterly broken system, which is why a lot of talented people refuse to do creative technical work any more. Creative tech work simply doesn't pay.
Re:patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easier to understand in an engineering context rather than a software context. With, say, the latest Dyson vacuum cleaner, any idiot from Hoover can go out and buy one, figure out how Dyson built it then churn them out in some factory in China for a quarter the price.
It's very difficult to prove one way or the other whether or not Hoover developed the idea independently or outright copied it. Therefore, the system makes it illegal to use the same technology regardless of whether or not you developed it entirely independently.
The theory is, this way inventors don't need to be afraid of showing off their invention just in case someone takes their idea and copies it, and innovation is thus encouraged. Think of at as a form of copyright applied to means of solving problems, as opposed to artistic works.
Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio (Score:1, Interesting)
It is not generally accepted practice in the business world to build without awareness of what was done previously. Patent searches cost in the thousands to tens of thousands of dolllars, litigation costs are in the millions, losing a product line could be hundreds of millions. Licenses are not a guarantee, especially not when dealing with competitors.
Also IP counsel typically interacts directly with inside counsel and the heads of marketing or product development. These are the people that down the line have to say they were provided reasons not to worry about specific patents and they understood and agreed. Without their involvement the lawyers' opinion doesn't protect the company because there is no reliance.
Re:excellent planning. (Score:3, Interesting)
IP Holders have done this for decades. Remember RSA's patent on the encryption as used by SSL/https? RSA refused to license their patent to endusers, instead only licensing in bulk to developers of specific webservers. SCO offered to license Linux... unless you were a single person, in which case they wouldn't even take your name and number for a callback.
I'm getting off track here since this has nothing to do with the EU situation, but bullshit like this is the "Other 50%" of Whats Wrong With Patents. The part nobody talks about, and when it comes to the Freedom To Code, the part that is even more damaging than bogus patents. Imagine that you're just one person and you'd like to write a webserver that was SSL capable while RSA still held the patent. Back then, RSA wouldn't even give you the time of day, much less an individual license for the RSA algorithm. Even for educational purposes, you're fucked.
Re:You can't "clean up" code. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm posting anonymously because I have a confession. I hold a degree in both CS and mathematics. I run linux on two of my three home computers and the third is Windows only because I use it as a digital audio workstation. Sorry for the life story; just pointing out that I am a geek.
Also, I'm a patent examiner.
With all due respect, some of what you've written is FUD. For example,
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.
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.
(The typical response is that the USPTO shouldn't grant vague patents. Patent prosecution is a complex field all to itself and without going into lengthy details, let me assure everyone that the USPTO would love to grant only fantastically strong, specific patents, however that is not always possible because of the outside checks & balances placed on the USPTO (primarily courts, but other influences exist.))
And worse, there are so many granted patents on basics of computer science.
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*)
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.
With all due respect, if there is prior art, put it in front of a judge and you have proven that you have not infringed. (Patent enforcement is not a criminal offence, therefore you do not prove your innocence.) It is much easier to say there is prior art than to understand what prior art actually is, let alone prove that prior art existed. Of course, I'm only speaking from the perspective of someone who finds and proves prior art for a living.
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.
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? For crying out loud, they could have shut down the internet. That patent has recently expired, but how does this fit in with the "IBM wants to dominate the entire computer software industry" line of reasoning? Beats me, man.
Anyway, just wanted to offer a little counterpoint. I'm that type of computer geek who hates to deal with ACTUAL computers - algorithms and Turing Machines are my playground. Now I examine patents and make serious bank doing it. 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.
I won
Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio (Score:4, Interesting)
Um... Why?
Some will take this as a troll, but I mean it in all seriousness when I ask "So what?"
The current patent minefield leaves NO room for independant implementations of any software concept any of us have ever heard of that that didn't originate either with-or-before Turing, or directly from the Open Source world. And even for those, it wouldn't surprise me to hear about some astoundingly trivial and ancient technique suddenly under patent, by companies that have adopted "extortion racket" as their business model (small enough fish can't afford to fight back).
Software like VLC and MPlayer know perfectly well that they violate a countless number of patents, 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). 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.
The corporate world, and the governments that pander to it, needs to realize that a growing number of people simply don't care about copyright or intellectual property in general (or to extend this a bit, about drug laws, speed limits, Terri Schivo, the outcome of our quadrennial tweedledum-vs-tweedledee popularity contest, and so on). The more they buy laws that result in serious congnitive dissonance when compared with physical reality, the less people take all laws seriously.
Software patents in Europe will have absolutely no effect on "our" world. The CEOs can all fret about the impending end to their current business models, the congresses/parliaments can all pass laws as fast as they like, but we will win. This particular "setback" just means that we'll start seeing a LOT more projects coming out of the Vanuatu's newest territory, Michigan. And in a decade, we might well have a large volume of software written on Saturn's newest moon, California, despite not even having a lunar colony by then.
GStreamer is under less of a threat than others (Score:5, Interesting)
Why ? Because GStreamer was designed *from the start* to be pluggable. The whole patent issue is one of the main reasons why GStreamer is designed the way it is. Sure, it took a lot longer to get to a point where stuff starts to Just Work, because we wanted to make sure we would be around when the shit hits the fan.
So while a lot of other projects chose to ignore the whole patent problem, and a lot of projects used the GPL as a license (which indeed is not compatible with patents), making it possible for any distro to ship them, we had the focus of making sure that the GStreamer platform is pluggable to the point where the libraries can be put in or taken out without breaking the applications. It's also one of the reasons why GStreamer, from the start, has been LGPL - because that allows distributors to ship a complete stack of GStreamer applications legally in places where software patents apply (like, say, the whole US). Fighting software patents is a great idea. Waving the problem away as if it's not there is not.
Also, with the arrival of Fluendo [fluendo.com], a company building stuff on top of GStreamer, (and also a company I happily work for :)), people will be able to get codecs for the patented formats in a legal way, if they chose not to run the risk, or if they want to be legally safe.
What does this mean in the end ?
Very few distros have taken the risk to ship one of the other projects, for legal reasons. (Apparently the mighty Debian ships Xine, and while on any other non-free subject lots of noise is made, this one seems to be left alone because it's a big deal).
It is no coincidence that projects like mplayer, vlc, and xine do not get shipped by most distributions. In fact, coincidentally, Fluendo did a press release [http] on this very issue yesterday.
Re:checking patents... (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents worked ok when the average level of education was much much lower and the number of people capable of inventing any given thing was much lower. There are so many inventive people around today it just doesn't make sense to have the system work this way anymore.
Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe this would fix it: (Score:3, Interesting)
So this is what the patent office does: For every category under which your invention falls, the patent office has a number of "experts" to whom it might refer. These experts can really be anybody who can demonstrate in-depth knowledge of a field, perhaps by meeting certain criteria set by the patent office, through tests of sorts. These experts would be paid by the patent office and given access to resources needed to analyze and research a patent application, in addition to the current patent researching procedures. The experts would then have the opportunity to swing the outcome of the patent application into one of several directions, such as "no", "yes", "need to be more specific", etc.
There wouldn't be just one expert assigned to a particular patent application. There would actually be a number of them, all of whom would cast some sort of vote to determine the outcome of a patent application. How many experts will have access to a patent application will depend on how many experts are signed up to review applications for the affected fields, how many applications are being reviewed, etc. When you file an application, you never know who or how many will review it. None of the experts will know who any of the other experts working on an application are.
Many safety precautions will be put into effect to make sure that the system works. If you think that all experts will vote "no" on all patent applications because it's something they might want to do themselves, the patent office will require an explanation of why the patent application is being rejected. This will be reviewed by the office's normal staff, who currently do all the work of reviewing patent applications. If you worry that companies will file zillions of patents for the same thing in an effort to make one of them get through the process, this can be fixed by keeping track of applications filed by particular organizations, with the office's normal crew rejecting duplicates that are too similar. If you are worried that experts will not put enough effort into reviewing applications, you can throw applications at them that have already been rejected as if these are new applications, to see if you get the same outcome. In fact, patents would, in this way, undergo a certain moderation, kind of like comments posted here on /., and there would be a sort of meta-moderation system in effect.
Hopefully, this would allow lots of people to spend, say, a few hours a week--PAID hours, mind you, paid for by the applicant--researching new patent applications in addition to current office research efforts. This will act as a filter to prevent a lot of crud from getting through.
This means several bad things will happen: Patent application fees will go up for the "lone inventor" working in his garage, while big corporations don't give a flying darn, but this can be fixed by implementing several changes:
Re:You can't "clean up" code. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you know that you just proved Bruce's point in your attempt to refute it?
Re:You can't "clean up" code. (Score:3, Interesting)
You should take into account the fact that the courts are a rich man's game before calling FUD on me.
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. I agree with every comment regarding the cost of going to court, and while that's a problem involving the patent system, this isn't something that the USPTO has authority to change. I know you haven't suggested that; I'm merely pointing out that the USPTO is an observer to that situation as well.
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.
I'm vaguely aware of that patent. I presume that you're refering to 37 CFR 1.56, the applicants' duty to disclose, in reference to the perjury. I can't really comment beyond that since I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. If you are correct in your analysis, that would be a great opportunity to challenge the validity of the patent.
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.
More time would be nice. I've often thought that examiners should work in pairs for reasons similar to police detectives having partners. The issue of a "triviality test" is sticky. It would require legislation, and legislation of grey areas is never fun. Look at how controversial the obscenity regulations and convince me that it's a great idea to try a similar idea when billions of corporate dollars are on the table.
And the people who send you patents should have real jail penalties for the way that they purjure themselves.
This would be a truly positive move for the system. As it currently stands, 37 CFR 1.105 is one of the most powerful sticks against silly patents. Prior art is often a minor hurdle, but once you say, "I think you guys have a mountain of relevant art that you haven't told me about and I can prove it," you REALLY get their attention. This rule is supposed to call into question the validity of their oath and declaration and a violation of their duty to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56, however I have never heard of anybody actually being disciplined for violating these. They either apologize and provide a little more prior art or they abandon the case.
Defeating Patents GPL style? A suggestion. (Score:5, Interesting)
What the FOSS world needs to do (please read) (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it all seems terribly seriously and gloomy, but when you have bad laws the only way they are killed or rendered impotent is if a large chunk of people reject it in everyday life and that's what people need to (carry on) doing. The FOSS community needs to harden it's resolve, stop flipflopping around and whining and just stay true to it's goals.
The 'law' has failed many many people throughout history and delivered incredible injustices and attrocities on humanity. It is not an absolute righteousness handed down by God or whatever creator you believe or don't belive in. It has certainely failed the FOSS movement, which needs to start looking beyond whatever the current law is now.
I suspect VLC and MPlayer are trying to drum up some sympathy and are shooting themselves in the foot a little bit with their "it will all end soon" messages (great software though they both are). And remember it was always pointed out to Slashdot by some here that Europe would not be the bastion of justice and morality some in the US thought it would be when it came to patents etc. Unfortunately the EU is riddled with corruption.
Just go forth and continue to make your software and distribute it by whatever means necessary. Because if you really believe in your heart you would let nothing or no one stop you.
What, exactly, is patented? (Score:1, Interesting)
Some people are saying "don't investigate patents, or you'll be liable for triple damages if you're found to be infringing". But this makes patents sound more like a boogeyman (or FUD) than a real threat. So let's hear EXACTLY what it is we're infringing on. Maybe the EFF or someone with money can try to get these patents invalidated.
JPEG = RGB-to-YUV conversion, optional decimation of the color channels, 8x8 blocking, 2D DCT, quantization, delta coding of the DC component, run-length compression of zero AC components, Huffman compression. Nothing worthy of patenting, IMHO.
MPEG-1 = JPEG for the I frames plus motion estimation (details unknown to me) for the P and B frames. I haven't heard about patent threats against free MPEG-1 code. Is MPEG-1 patented? How about the accompanying MP2 audio?
MPEG-2 = MPEG-1 plus support for interlaced video. If MPEG-1 isn't patented and MPEG-2 is, what is the difference? The support for interlace? The AC3 audio that usually goes with MPEG-2?
I don't know enough about MPEG-4 to say anything about whether it's technology is or should be patented.
MP3 audio is patented by Fraunhofer, who have stated that they don't have a problem with people writing free MP3 decoders.
Some implementations of arithmetic coding (e.g. Q-coding) are patented. I think H.263 video uses arithmetic coding. Patented or not?
What else?
Re:You can't "clean up" code. (Score:1, Interesting)
I give you the string "1" but you can not decompress it. I on the other hand know full well that if "1" is entered into my decompression program that the result will be the string "0XA^* VNN)£FSNDFIS"
Zip gz bzip2 etc do this but on a statistical basis (and do a damn fine job) so the decompression algorithm knows the function to reverse the compression rather than a direct translation.
I saw a funny challenge on the web where someone would pay X money for a highly compressed file to be futher compressed.
The resultant answer was to split file into 0 length files where the tens of thousands of file fragments names were the data.
The challenge author did not pay out even though a directory listing (as specified in the challenge) showed less space taken (obviously it was actually more space).
Re:You can't "clean up" code. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure it does.
You indicated in your earlier post that the reason USPTO grants a lot of patents is because of the checks and balances, including courts. If courts forcing USPTO to grant patents is indeed what's going on here, then USPTO can start going to court more, to put the burden of "proof" on the shoulders of those requesting the patent.
The "burden" in this case is cash. Yes, patent cases are civil cases (today) and the legal "burden of proof" lies with the patent-holding prosecution. But, as Bruce and others have pointed out, the defense would get bankrupted first in many cases.
Lets suppose instead that the USPTO granted a narrower set of patents, plus those they're forced to by a court (plaintiff in this case being the rejected patent-seeker). Yes, it cost the patent seeker money to bring the suit. They get the benefit of having their newly-minted patent be declared valid by a court before they go trying to use it to squash competition.
The net effect would be fewer patents granted in general (many rejected firms wouldn't bother with the court case). Small business will likely get fewer patents in the aggregate, as they won't want to fund the court case to force USPTO to grant the patent. But, I argue that there are far fewer small businesses seeking patents than there are small businesses who could get sued for patent infringement, so small business gains on the whole.
Oh, and IANAPENDIPOOTV (I Am Not A Patent Examiner, Nor Do I Play One On TV)...
Come on dude, you do not know of which you speak. (Score:1, Interesting)
Brucey has as many valid points as you do, and his are more important. For example, right or wrong, NOBODY wants to pay a pack of lawyers millions to test a vague patent in court. Especially since courts *hate* to invalidate a patent, especially on obviousness, and triple especially under "35 USC 112". His point is about the money, it's not about whether it actually is valid or not.
Here's a point you could have made - CS patents aren't vague by intention. They are vague because the art is vague - known terminology is rejected if it is not exactly right, new terminology is thrown in just for fun, lots of guys use their own made-up jargon, and the whole thing is necessarily full of arbitrary abstractions and distinctions. It's like patenting literary criticism, nobody can tell what the hell you are talking about.