Theora patents [LWN.net]

Theora patents

Posted Feb 4, 2010 8:02 UTC (Thu) by silviapfeiffer (guest, #63354)
In reply to: Theora patents by DonDiego
Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web

Just posting links to patents isn't actually proving anything - I could post a billion links and defending each one would be a futile effort. Let's be constructive with such discussions. If you really think these patents are being infringed by Theora, you should care to explain why you think so. Since everything about Theora is public, it's possible to have such a technical discussion publicly.

to post comments

Theora patents

Posted Feb 4, 2010 15:11 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (9 responses)

I'm being constructive and doing this in the open. Everybody else claims that "No patents apply, just *trust* us.", which is disingenuous. Why has nobody published the results of their patent investigations?

Theora patents

Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:07 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (8 responses)

You doing it openly has no value at all really You need lawyers to analyze
your claims and you will find that its hard to get lawyers to say anything
in public about this sort of analysis in general

Theora patents

Posted Feb 4, 2010 23:01 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (5 responses)

> You doing it openly has no value at all really

Yes, it should really be done behind closed doors, just like software development and science. After that, when you have concluded your research, you tell nobody about it and just demand that everybody trust you. After all, why should they ever doubt your word.

> You need lawyers to analyze your claims

You want a lawyer to analyze whether or not Theora implements the technique described in the patent? What would qualify a lawyer to do that? Do you go see a lawyer when you feel a pain in your chest?

> and you will find that its hard to get lawyers to say anything in public about this sort of analysis in general

This is not specific to lawyers, it applies to all people that have something to hide.

Theora patents

Posted Feb 5, 2010 5:52 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

I wouldn't trust any "open analysis" of chest pain from you (especially there
is no analysis at all other than a bunch of links) either I would not trust
anyone not trained to do the work to get good results and your try if it was
actually one is ample proof of that If you want anyone to take you seriously
substantiate why these links mean anything at all or get someone like SFLC to
verify your claims

The reasons for lawyers not usually willing to talk about patent claims in
specific details in public is because their analysis can be used as a weapon
against the case they are trying to make and I am sure you will find out more
when you try and get SFLC to publish their interpretations if it is actually
specific

Theora patents

Posted Feb 5, 2010 9:07 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (3 responses)

I haven't done any sort of analysis, nor did I claim to have done so. I just posted a bunch of links that we stumbled upon after a quick search. It shows that there are plenty of patents out there that are potentially infringed and that saying "Just trust us." is not enough. You'll have to come up with something better than an unsubstantiated promise.

If the patent analysis can be used as a weapon it's because patents are being infringed.

Theora patents

Posted Feb 5, 2010 16:27 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

You throwing a bunch of links really serves no purpose other than
unsubstantiated FUD Anybody can throw such links and if you make a claim
that a technology is patent encumbered the burden of proof is on you and not
on anyone else

There are lots of people including Xiph and Mozilla which have done such
analysis and their actions on distributing the codec is enough to show their
decision and your claim that the only reason not to publish it because there
is infringement is plain wrong and shows zero understanding of the issues
involved

Refer http://lwn.net/Articles/373094/

Theora patents

Posted Feb 5, 2010 22:54 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

I notice that you don't seem to be describing any of these 'issues
involved', only alluding to them. (Also, your . key has apparently failed
in the last few days. Sentences are much easier to read with the
occasional one in.)

Theora patents

Posted Feb 6, 2010 5:06 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Yes indeed my keyboard has some issues and I need to get it replaced and
for now a few important keys are not working The issues involved were
described in the link and you could read that without having me repeat it

Theora patents

Posted Feb 5, 2010 21:21 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

But the organisations who have had their lawyers do this research and gotten
an opinion could publish it, no?

Part of the problem perhaps is that the waters between licence issues due to
patents risks and patent risks to distributors are not quite clear (it seems from
this discussion anyway). E.g. a possible issue here, I wonder, is that publishing
such legal opinion might help clarify risk generally, but not be helpful to the risks
faced by the publishing organisation?

Theora patents

Posted Feb 6, 2010 5:16 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Any lawyer you consult with likely ask you not to publish their legal
opinions especially when the issue is patents If the other party knows the
arguments you are making then you are putting all your cards on the table
and they can make their counter arguments much more stronger and sometimes
twist your arguments against you

As a general case lawyers would advise their clients to never talk to the
police as well and it is not because you have something to hide

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865