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

Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

tanersener.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#71

Post by kelnos »

dylan604 wrote: post #43
duped wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no lawyer but I feel like a company shouldn't have standing to contest a patent if they can't demonstrate damages, like a product losing sales because someone else is selling a competing product using technology under their patent. And "we paid for something and want ROI" are not damages. There's no legal right to profit from an investment. You gotta use it or lose it.

In this case though, licensing their code is their use of the product. Don't let your ire of patent trolls lump everyone together. I'm not saying MPEG/Via-LA are angels, but they own rights to code that is used by millions while holding active licenses with people using that code.

My ire for patent trolls is distinct.

The patent "business" is just garbage. A company full of lawyers collecting rents on mathematical algorithms does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts".

I think there is still a place for patents, but most of the time they seem to just stifle innovation and increase the cost of everything.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#72

Post by rwmj »

conductr wrote: post #53
rwmj wrote: post #3

[flagged]

You have a link to your blog in your profile, I don’t understand anything the top post is talking about and you’ve given little/no context. I can guess it’s hardware benchmarking related and I know I’m not particularly interested in that and I can opt to bounce away. And I did. I’m not asking you to go write a better intro to ease me into something I’m not interested in. I had never used ffmpeg kit but it linked to t…

Touché, I will improve it now.

Edit: Updated version - https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2024/11/19/benchmarking-risc-v-sp...

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#73

Post by kelnos »

amiga386 wrote: post #68
jcranmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first patent I found was EP3975559 ( https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe... ) The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...

The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO. And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't…

I'm a little confused what your argument is, then. You claim that software is not patentable in the EU, but then accept that some companies manage to get software patented in EU countries by writing their patents creatively.

So... software is patentable in the EU, at least in some circumstances. That's the end result, even if technically it's not allowed.

Unless these patents in question don't actually cover video codec software, which it seems they do?

The ultimate test, of course, is if these patents would stand up in court. But it seems no one has challenged them? Which indicates to me that either a) people believes they would hold up in court, and so they don't try to challenge them, or b) no one is sure, and is afraid to find out. Either outcome has the end result of "software can be patented in the EU sometimes".

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#74

Post by kelnos »

freeone3000 wrote: post #36
bsimpson wrote: post #4

Paying contractors to support your free GitHub project is wild. Open source is beautiful and broken at the same time.

I don’t see this being broken in the slightest! What’s the issue with paying someone to write code you don’t want to?

In general, nothing, but it made me a bit sad that the maintainer believed he "owed" the community (likely 99% full of people who were using his work for free) to the point that he spent money for someone else to do work that he couldn't find time to do himself. Instead of just shuttering the project earlier, and saving that money.

I really hope the "significant sum" he paid was out of donations to the project, and not his own money. Even then, it sounds like he's poured a ton of his time and energy into the project over the years, so even if it was all donated money, he certainly could have kept it for himself without any moral/ethical concerns.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#75

Post by kelnos »

DrillShopper wrote: post #65
stackedinserter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTFY the laws that allow MPEG-LA to exist are the reason why we can't have nice things.

It can be both - just because it's legal for MPEG-LA to act that way it doesn't require them to do so

No, but human nature is such that all it takes is a handful of unscrupulous people who see laws that they can use to their financial advantage. We can certainly assign blame to the people who work for MPEG-LA/Via-LA, but ultimately there will always be organizations like that as long as the law allows or incentivizes that sort of thing.

If we care about outcomes, the only thing to do is get the law changed so companies like that can't exist. Not because they are banned, but because there's no business model there.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#76

Post by amiga386 »

kelnos wrote: post #73
amiga386 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO. And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't…

I'm a little confused what your argument is, then. You claim that software is not patentable in the EU, but then accept that some companies manage to get software patented in EU countries by writing their patents creatively. So... software is patentable in the EU, at least in some circumstances. That's the end result, even if technically it's not allowed. Unless these patents in question don't actually cover video co…

I'd say it's the difference between a country where stealing is a crime, but some people commit that crime anyway, and sometimes the stealing isn't detected, and sometimes it's detected but it's not worth the cost of prosecuting the thief... versus a country with laws like "steal all you want! it's not a crime at all! in fact we actively encourage it! stealing is great!"

jcranmer is trying to convince you that there is no difference between these two positions, because, technically, in both there is at least some stealing.

But they're not the same. Let's go back to the top-level question. Why is a US-based wrapper for a French library choosing to pre-emptively delete all binaries it has ever produced and completely shut down, out of fear of unstated legal actions, while the French library has been in active development for 25 years, and -- if software patents weren't explicitly illegal there -- would likely have been sued to oblivion by the same people who menace the USA.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#78

Post by iambateman »

amiga386 wrote: post #62
cm2187 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, Via-LA just didn't respond to the author, that doesn't really say anything about their position. It's a bit premature to call them greedy bastard. The author is doing this out of an abundance of caution, not in response of a legal action.

If I write to the Mafia asking to confirm they won't burn my store to the ground, they won't write back saying "no". They're not obligated to respond, and they enjoy the fear, uncertainty and doubt their non-response creates.

If I ask my city if they will enforce their explicitly written zoning policy against renting a single room to a tenant, they won’t write back. But they also have no intention of enforcing that policy.

It doesn’t make them evil…just bureaucratic.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#79

Post by r2vcap »

I’ve never used FFmpeg-kit—I always use FFmpeg from distro packages (Linux, Homebrew) or build it selectively—so I’m not sure how important it is. Is it just a thin wrapper around the FFmpeg C API for various platforms?

If that’s the case, software engineers relying on it should learn how to build FFmpeg from source and handle platform-specific challenges (especially on Android). The loss of the overall community support doesn’t seem that significant, right?

That said, whether someone uses FFmpeg-kit or builds FFmpeg manually, the legal risks remain the same. If they don’t understand codec patents (like x264 and MPEG-LA) or GPL/LGPL obligations, they could face lawsuits or be forced to release their code under GPL. The real issue isn’t FFmpeg-kit—it’s whether developers actually understand these legal implications.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#80

Post by jcranmer »

amiga386 wrote: post #76
kelnos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little confused what your argument is, then. You claim that software is not patentable in the EU, but then accept that some companies manage to get software patented in EU countries by writing their patents creatively. So... software is patentable in the EU, at least in some circumstances. That's the end result, even if technically it's not allowed. Unless these patents in question don't actually cover video co…

I'd say it's the difference between a country where stealing is a crime, but some people commit that crime anyway, and sometimes the stealing isn't detected, and sometimes it's detected but it's not worth the cost of prosecuting the thief... versus a country with laws like "steal all you want! it's not a crime at all! in fact we actively encourage it! stealing is great!" jcranmer is trying to convince you that there…

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, let me just say what I think:

I believe software patents are no more legal in the US than they are in the EU, and this is based on SCOTUS precedent in the US that makes the legal argument for software patents very sketchy. In a just world, that would mean that pretty much all of the MPEG-LA's patent portfolio should be worthless. But I suspect that in both the US and the EU, the fig leaf of "but I didn't patent the software algorithm, I patented the hardware running the software algorithm" is sufficient to get it granted and survive scrutiny to get it invalidated.

I don't have the time to look up the court case history of the EU--and I know that the EU is a civil law jurisdiction so the court case history isn't precedential in the same way it is in the US--but I would not be shocked if there have been cases that have upheld these software patents, despite the seemingly clear language in the treaties that software patents don't exist. Because the legal field is one wherein the "obvious" definition of software patent isn't necessarily the same as the legal definition.

The reality is that MPEG-LA positively asserts that it has a buttload of EU patents it can sic on your ass for violating, and were I being sued by them, I wouldn't be willing to bet that "but software patents are illegal!" is a winning defense.

Post reply on HN