Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

iis.fraunhofer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 291 posts

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#111

Post by CharlesW »

magila wrote: post #24
derefr wrote: post #8

So, now that the "but MP3 is patent-encumbered" consideration is finally dead-ish, what's the new balance on the debate between shipping {MP3, MP4-AAC, MKV-Vorbis, MKV-Opus} as music/SFX assets in software products? Also, with the two sub-considerations: • on mobile, where hardware decoding exists for only some codecs; • on the web, where the audio APIs only accept some of these formats/codecs.

For new products there isn't really any room for debate anymore, Opus is the clear winner.

> For new products there isn't really any room for debate anymore, Opus is the clear winner.

If you mean "for low-latency live streaming/conferencing", I think you're probably right.

If you mean "by popularity", with a few exceptions all non-MP3 encoded audio you hear is (and has been for some time) AAC.

If you mean "by quality", Opus is comparable to AAC/HE-AAC audio quality, but Opus' Achilles' heel is hardware support.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#112

Post by TD-Linux »

khedoros1 wrote: post #100
jorvi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably Rockbox? iPods their clickwheel interface and it's software was amazing for the time, but other MP3 players generally had kinda icky interfaces. Rockbox fixed that :)

Yes, it was Rockbox. I followed it when they were first bringing it up on the 4th Gen iPod.

The "fast enough Vorbis" was likely the addition of Tremor, the first fixed-point Vorbis implementation. There's a nice (but with many old entries) chart of decode speeds here: https://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison

On newer hardware + software, like the Clip Zip, the gap is much smaller and the performance way higher than needed in any case (except for HE-AAC, the clear loser).

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#113

Post by microwavecamera »

2bluesc wrote: post #70
throwaway91111 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM.

> How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM. Then you start by not giving them your money. It's a uphill battle, but someone has to fight the good fight instead of just throwing their hands-up.

Your right and it works. People used to say the same thing about Linux and open source software.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#114

Post by robgibbons »

PatentTroll wrote: post #85
magila wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is already covered by copyright. Granting it parent protection as well allows software companies to double dip in a way that no other industry can.

Well, copyright covers an implementation of software, but a clean-room rewrite can get around a copyright of software. In that way, no, copyright is not a real way to protect software.

And why should a cleanroom implementation be an infringement? It is not a true derivative copy. Either way, software is more akin to language or math, certainly not mechanics. We have copyrights for language, and narrow patents on applications of mathematical formulas (which in itself is debatable in its justification).

Copyrights are sufficient. You shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't use a certain software algorithm in their own program, in a different language, in a different domain. That stifles innovation.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#115

Post by int_19h »

a3n wrote: post #43
pdeuchler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All software can be reduced to mathematical formulae, which cannot be patented, so no. There should be no such thing as a software patent.

I'm very sympathetic to the idea of disallowing software patents; to my layman's sensibilities, so many of them are ridiculous, or after the fact grants of something that has been done in practice for years, or predatory, or all that and more. However, any physical machine or process can be reduced to the laws of physics, and you can't patent the laws of physics as far as I know. I don't think "reduced to mathematica…

One could even claim that any mechanical device is ultimately reducible to a wavefunction, which is really just math.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#116

Post by erik »

CharlesW wrote: post #111
magila wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For new products there isn't really any room for debate anymore, Opus is the clear winner.

> For new products there isn't really any room for debate anymore, Opus is the clear winner. If you mean "for low-latency live streaming/conferencing", I think you're probably right. If you mean "by popularity", with a few exceptions all non-MP3 encoded audio you hear is (and has been for some time) AAC. If you mean "by quality", Opus is comparable to AAC/HE-AAC audio quality, but Opus' Achilles' heel is hardware sup…

Re: popularity; If you play PC or console games, you probably listen to a lot of Vorbis encoded audio.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#117

Post by CalChris »

Software falls under Process which is one of the four patentable subject matters for utility patents: Process, Machine, Manufacture and Composition of Matter. So software is patentable in the United States. However, software can also fall under the abstract idea exception and thus not be patentable.

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

Enfish LLC v Microsoft is the most important recent case. In its decision, the Supreme Court suggested that claims purporting to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or improving an existing technological process might not succumb to the abstract idea exception.

http://www.patentdocs.org/2016/05/enfish-llc-v-microsoft-cor...

That's your dividing line. My guess is that Fraunhofer's MP3 patents improve a technological process and are valid.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#118

Post by daveFNbuck »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #97
2bluesc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM. Then you start by not giving them your money. It's a uphill battle, but someone has to fight the good fight instead of just throwing their hands-up.

Do you suggest I don't listen to music, or are you prepared with an alternative to apple?

Amazon sells music and lets you download DRM-free mp3s.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#119

Post by maxlybbert »

Manchit wrote: post #72
TD-Linux wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in software patents is unlikely to change a court's mind. Instead, support formats that are royalty free from the start - Vorbis, Opus, and Codec2, for example.

This has been confusing me for a long time. As far as I know, it's clearly stated that software is not applicable to patent.

In the US, patents on ideas, business processes, and algorithms are not allowed. However, there's a goofy (court approved) legal idea that software transforms a general-purpose computer into a single-purpose computer, and that transformation makes software patentable.

The general-purpose computer to single-purpose computer transformation cracks me up (and makes it obvious that the law doesn't necessarily have any relationship with reality): "by loading this program, a computer able to do many different things becomes a computer capable of doing a specific thing."

Post reply on HN