ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Audio-video patents"

(External links: * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 Wikipedia: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC])
m (Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: update link)
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}Audio-video is a domain of computer science plagued by thickets of [[software patents]].
+
{{navbox}}
 +
'''Audio-video''' is a domain of computer science plagued by thickets of [[software patents]].
  
==Difficulty of video innovation==
+
==Is''' ''all'' '''video development blocked?==
  
 
When explaining why [[Google]] were not supporting the patent-free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona replied "''here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?''"<ref>http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020382.html</ref>
 
When explaining why [[Google]] were not supporting the patent-free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona replied "''here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?''"<ref>http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020382.html</ref>
  
==Making innovation commercially disadvantageous==
+
Patent licensing group [[MPEG LA]] have made vague, unsubstantiated claims about that all video formats infringe their patents:
 
 
[[Nokia]]'s  2007 position paper regarding video codecs in the [[w3c]]'s [[HTML5]] standard suggested [[using software from 20 years ago]]:
 
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
''A second alternative would be the reference, as a baseline, of older media compression standards, of which one can be reasonably sure that related patents are expired (or are close to expiration). One example for these codecs is ITU-T Rec. H.261, which (in its first version) was ratified in November 1988. While not competitive with today’s state of the art codecs, it’s in the author’s personal experience not that far in its performance from [...] '''The disadvantage of this approach is clearly the use of technologies that are two decades old, but that may be at least partly offset by the commercial advantage'''.''<ref>http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf</ref><br />(emphasis added)
+
no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as [[Theora]] are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too. MPEG LA would consider offering on additional licenses that would make these rights conveniently available to the market under a single license as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders.<ref>http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=11746</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
So, due to software patents, Nokia sees a commercial advantage in using technology from 20 years ago.
+
There are three possible solutions: [[WebM]], [[Ogg Theora]], or [[use software from 20 years ago]].
  
==Are ALL formats encumbered?==
+
==Making innovation commercially disadvantageous==
  
Patent licensing group MPEG-LA have made vague, unsubstantiated claims about that all video formats infringe their patents:
+
[[Nokia]]'s  2007 position paper regarding video codecs in the [[w3c]]'s [[HTML5]] standard suggested [[using software from 20 years ago]]:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
''no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as [[Theora]] are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too. MPEG LA would consider offering on additional licenses that would make these rights conveniently available to the market under a single license as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders.''<ref>http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=11746</ref>
+
A second alternative would be the reference, as a baseline, of older media compression standards, of which one can be reasonably sure that related patents are expired (or are close to expiration). One example for these codecs is ITU-T Rec. H.261, which (in its first version) was ratified in November 1988. While not competitive with today’s state of the art codecs, it’s in the author’s personal experience not that far in its performance from [...] '''The disadvantage of this approach is clearly the use of technologies that are two decades old, but that may be at least partly offset by the commercial advantage'''.<ref>http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf</ref><br />(emphasis added)
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
So, due to software patents, Nokia sees a commercial advantage in using technology from 20 years ago.
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
  
* [[MPEG video formats]] - including H.264
+
* [[MPEG LA]] - which blocks use of H.264
 
* [[Harm to standards]]
 
* [[Harm to standards]]
* [[Example software patents]]
 
 
* [[Real Media]] - audio and video formats with patent problems<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Real_Media_Player</ref>
 
* [[Real Media]] - audio and video formats with patent problems<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Real_Media_Player</ref>
 
* [[Ogg Theora]]
 
* [[Ogg Theora]]
* [[On2 VP8]]
+
* [[WebM and VP8]]
 
* [[List of recordings and transcripts]]
 
* [[List of recordings and transcripts]]
 
* [[Why consumer organisations should be involved]]
 
* [[Why consumer organisations should be involved]]
 +
* [[Video formats from 20 years ago]]
 +
* [[Example software patents]]
 +
** [[Business method patents]]
 +
** [[Financial transaction patents]]
 +
** [[Image processing patents]]
 +
** [[Micro-blogging patents]]
 +
** [[Security, encryption and spam solution patents]]
 +
** [[Webpage and e-commerce patents]]
 +
** [[XML patents]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
  
* [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/07/patent_crackdown_at_cebit/ 180 German police perform raid regarding software patents]
+
* [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/07/patent_crackdown_at_cebit/ 180 German police perform raid regarding software patents], 7 Mar 2008, '''The Reg'''
* Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues MP3#Licensing and patent issues]
+
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-audio-format-matters.html gnu.org: Why audio format matters], '''gnu.org'''
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-audio-format-matters.html gnu.org: Why audio format matters]
+
* [http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ HTML5 video and codecs], and [http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html Video, Freedom And Mozilla], Jan 2010, '''Mozilla Foundation'''
 +
* [http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/03/lets-get-video-on-wikipedia/ Let’s Get Video on Wikipedia!] - campaign launched by [[Open Video Alliance]]
 
* [http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/Rob_Savoye,_Gnash_-_Gnash,_the_GNU_Flash_Player_-_LibrePlanet_2009.ogg Rob Savoye, at the end of a Gnash talk, mentions a CodecPatents project] (the project has a [http://www.codecpatents.org/ placeholder website])
 
* [http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/Rob_Savoye,_Gnash_-_Gnash,_the_GNU_Flash_Player_-_LibrePlanet_2009.ogg Rob Savoye, at the end of a Gnash talk, mentions a CodecPatents project] (the project has a [http://www.codecpatents.org/ placeholder website])
* Mozilla Foundation comments, January 2010: [http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ HTML5 video and codecs], and [http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html Video, Freedom And Mozilla]
 
 
* One of the relevant patents: [http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,214,678.PN.&OS=PN/5,214,678&RS=PN/5,214,678 US5,214,678] (relevant to what??)
 
* One of the relevant patents: [http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,214,678.PN.&OS=PN/5,214,678&RS=PN/5,214,678 US5,214,678] (relevant to what??)
* [http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/03/lets-get-video-on-wikipedia/ Let’s Get Video on Wikipedia!] - campaign launched by [[Open Video Alliance]]
+
* [http://www.fsf.org/resources/formats/playogg/en Play Ogg!], '''[[FSF]]''', a campaign to avoid H.264 by using the Ogg audio and video formats
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 Wikipedia: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC]
+
* [http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ No, you can’t do that with H.264], 2 Feb 2010, '''Ben Schwartz'''
  
 
===Difficulty of developing players===
 
===Difficulty of developing players===
Line 50: Line 59:
 
* Videolan: [http://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html VideoLAN is seriously threatened by software patents...]
 
* Videolan: [http://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html VideoLAN is seriously threatened by software patents...]
 
* [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionFFmpeg Ubuntu forum discussion about whether and how ffmpeg can be distributed]
 
* [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionFFmpeg Ubuntu forum discussion about whether and how ffmpeg can be distributed]
 +
 +
===Wikipedia articles===
 +
 +
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues MP3#Licensing and patent issues]
 +
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 Wikipedia: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
{{reflist}}
  
  
{{page footer}}
+
{{footer}}
 
[[Category:Example software patents]]
 
[[Category:Example software patents]]

Latest revision as of 07:39, 20 January 2014

Audio-video is a domain of computer science plagued by thickets of software patents.

Is all video development blocked?

When explaining why Google were not supporting the patent-free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona replied "here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?"[1]

Patent licensing group MPEG LA have made vague, unsubstantiated claims about that all video formats infringe their patents:

no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too. MPEG LA would consider offering on additional licenses that would make these rights conveniently available to the market under a single license as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders.[2]

There are three possible solutions: WebM, Ogg Theora, or use software from 20 years ago.

Making innovation commercially disadvantageous

Nokia's 2007 position paper regarding video codecs in the w3c's HTML5 standard suggested using software from 20 years ago:

A second alternative would be the reference, as a baseline, of older media compression standards, of which one can be reasonably sure that related patents are expired (or are close to expiration). One example for these codecs is ITU-T Rec. H.261, which (in its first version) was ratified in November 1988. While not competitive with today’s state of the art codecs, it’s in the author’s personal experience not that far in its performance from [...] The disadvantage of this approach is clearly the use of technologies that are two decades old, but that may be at least partly offset by the commercial advantage.[3]
(emphasis added)

So, due to software patents, Nokia sees a commercial advantage in using technology from 20 years ago.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Difficulty of developing players

Wikipedia articles

References