video codec patent nonsense [LWN.net]

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 10, 2008 14:20 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205)
In reply to: video codec patent nonsense by DonDiego
Parent article: Video forums for free software

> Given the (ever increasing) amount of patents and the way the patent 
> system works, such proof is unlikely to be produced - ever.

It's worse than that, of course, you can't prove a negative.

My point is that there are free alternatives, not (yet, perhaps) known to be using patented
algorithms/encoding schemes/mumble, but that they aren't widely used.

Based on your comment, it seems like you think free software folks should just give up on
using video codecs at all in patent-friendly jurisdictions.  An overthrow of the patent regime
would fix the problem, but is a ways off, if ever.

jake

(Log in to post comments)

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 10, 2008 15:17 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

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.

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 10, 2008 15:28 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> 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.

I guess I am having trouble seeing what fallacy I am repeating.  I think you read more into my
statement than was there.  I don't believe the article really addressed the patent situation
vis a vis Theora and Dirac, though it certainly implies that they are less patent encumbered
(and they are, at least as far as is known).

Free is ambiguous, but I think most folks understood what was meant.

> No such proof exists.

Nor can it as we have both agreed.

> Statements like "XYZ is not covered by software patents"

Which is not a statement that the article made.

I think you are reacting to what you have heard elsewhere (possibly including on this site and
written by me) as if it is here in this article.

jake

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 10, 2008 15:41 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

Jake, when you write that

  Patented video codecs are a big part of the problem, though there are
  free alternatives (Theora and Dirac for example), they are not widely
  used.

then you are clearly implying that the alternatives (i.e. Theora and Dirac) are not covered by
patents.  I really do not think I am reading things into your article that are not present in
it.

You could avoid this by either replacing "patented video codecs" by something along the lines
of "video codecs with known patent pools" or simply avoid making a statement about the patent
situation at all or by speaking about the licensing fees (protection money rather) that some
entities collect for its use.

As an alternative you could rephrase the above paragraph like this:

  Video codecs requiring licensing fees for certain uses in certain parts
  of the world are a big part of the problem, though there are alternatives
  that do not require licensing fees (Theora and Dirac for example), they
  are not widely used.

This would certainly be a tad more cumbersome, but you would not make statements which are
misleading and for which you have no proof.  You get my drift.

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 12, 2008 14:58 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

Actually, the BBC has checked for patents on Dirac, and found none.

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 12, 2008 15:12 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Stop injecting *facts* and *logic* into this flamewar. If everyone did 
that, the Internet would collapse, or something.

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 12, 2008 15:29 UTC (Sat) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

I'm glad to hear that, but I would like to have a bit more than just your word for it. Can you
please provide a link or similar thing to substantiate this?