video codec patent nonsense

Of course there is a difference between a codec where the patent situation is an unknown
unchartered territory and another codec where you can go to a patent clearinghouse to buy
licenses.

Some players in the market prefer codecs where you can get licenses from a clearinghouse,
others prefer those where no such entities exist.  This does not, however, constitute a proof
or even a statement that no patents apply to the latter category.

And neither model protects you from trolls coming along later of course.

Of course you cannot prove a negative.  Nonetheless, you can attempt to do more or less
exhaustive patent searches and come to the conclusion that none of the patents you checked
apply to your program, e.g. Theora decoder X.  This has been done for many things, but not for
Theora or Dirac.

I don't think free software folks should just give up on video codecs.  Not at all, I work on
FFmpeg and MPlayer every day.  What we should give up on is centering on those small parts of
the world where these encumbrances are a problem (mostly USA) and those people for whom these
encumbrances are a problem (enterprises, not private users).

What we should give up on is buying snake oil.  Statements like "XYZ is not covered by
software patents" - like all sorts of statements really - are only credible when convincing
proof is presented.  No such proof exists.

What irks me is that perfectly reasonable people like you, Jake, repeat this fallacy as if it
were gospel, when they really should know better.

You could avoid falling into all these traps by modifying your statements when talking about
things like Theora and Dirac.  Do not claim that they are "free", the term is much too
ambiguous anyway.  Say that they are free software (this applies to many others as well) or
state that there are no licensing bodies collecting fees for them.  Just don't state things
for which no shred of proof exists.

Thank you for posting that.  I was considering writing a response much like it, but it would
not have been as informed or articulate.

Sorry if i have to correct you, but Diego is not spreading FUD or anything.
He is also not someone who is promoting anything proprietary.

Diego and I work together on MPlayer and FFmpeg for years now. We've
done more in the field of OSS video and audio codecs than most
you here. We know exactly what the field looks like, how companies
behave and how much FUD is spread by both companies and uneducated
FOSS activists. So, here some facts for you:

1) So many OSS video players violate thousands of patents, not one
has been sued. Threatened yes (libdts and libvp62 are the only
two cases that come to mind, and that in the over 8 years
I closely follow OSS video players), but never actually sued.

2) Patents on video and audio codecs are so plentyfull and broad that
there is no way that Theora and Dirac (or vorbis of that matter) are not
covered by even one of them. Believe us, we've read quite a few patents
on codecs and know how the world out there looks like. So, before you
claim that they are not covered by any non-trivial patent, prove your
claim. And i don't mean by "xy did a patent survey and didn't find
anything" but by "xy did a patent survey, scanned patents based on these
and that criteria and closely looked at those patents". Anything else is
just FUD.

3) Theora (i haven't extensively tested Dirac yet) is so inferior to
anything out there (PSNR vs compression rate), that you can just simply
forget it. Even MPEG4 Simple Profile beats it. Not to talk about the
commonly used Advanced Simple Profile. Which is even more embarrassing
if you think that snow (a prototype wavelet based OSS codec) was written
in a few months by a single guy years ago, and not touched since and still 
beats Theora. This alone makes Theora obsolete as the market will not pick
anything vastly inferior if there is a better solution available at a
similar price (eg MPEG4 ASP or h.264), especially not if there are
OSS implementations available. Just have a look at VC-1, microsofts
attempt to gain a foothold in the video codec business. They couldn't
deliver a much better performance than h.264 and hence are not much
considered, even though they are very comparable in performance and
under some circumstances even better.

4) MPEG4 & Co are _not_ proprietary codecs. They might be patent
encumbered, but the standards are freely available for anyone.
You can get them "legally" from ISO and/or MPEG (and not too
expensive) or "illegally" by searching for them on google/yahoo.

5) Beside what most people think, for non-commercial use, you
don't have to pay any patent fees at all. Patents cover only
the commercial world. Anything you do at home or in your free
time is not covered by patent law and hence you don't have
to pay anything.

If you still think that you have to prove us that we are spreading FUD,
i personally invite you to visit us at LinuxTag end of May in Berlin.
We can have a long and nice chat there.