bboard.mp3.com
responses to this article are posted in "Michael's forum" on the mp3 board
will snip what I can:
Author Topic: Fraunhofer Enforces Patent Claims -Shuts Down Free MP3 Encoders
michael
Administrator posted 09-11-98 11:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Fraunhofer's claims reasonable? Don't they have the right to benefit from their large R&D expenditures which were responsible in some part for the MP3 format?
If they do have a valid claim, does it makes sense for them to capture royalties on tools and the output? Isn't that the equivalent of Microsoft charging you everytime you printed out something in Microsoft Word that you were selling? Or Adobe charging graphic artists each time they sold a design to a company which they supplied to them in Postscript format using Photoshop?
And what about the implied license which comes with products. If a user buys an encoder software program, isn't there an implied license that they can use it to make MP3 files for whatever purpose they wish?
And finally what about the First Sale doctrine. Is Fraunhofer double dipping by selling the encoder and then getting paid again when people actually use the encoder to make MP3 files?
Let's hear your input!
solmssen
posted 09-11-98 03:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi - Fraunhofer has some legitimacy here, but they are over stepping their bounds.
One - the issue of software patents, in general, is controversial. An algorithm is an idea or process, not an output. If I patent a process for making a valuable chemical compound, I cannot prevent others from developing independent, different processes for making the same compound.
Two - If the encoders are based on their code, then they have a right to enforce a copyright and request royalties on derivative works. However, their royalty structure is all out of whack. $25 a copy is too much for the market to bear, and the following things will happen. They will stifle work on other encoders and drive them to other markets or formats, and there will contiue to be rampant piracy of the Fraunhofer products - it takes about a minute to find a copy of MP3 Producer Pro on the net as it is now. Also, asking for royalties on the resale of MP3 files seems unenforcable and ill-considered.
Hagar
posted 09-11-98 04:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They'd have better luck just asking for royalties for the encoder. This is probably due to the increasing number of portable players available, and plans to stream music from sattelites. Then again, maybe they're trying to protect themselves now that Microsoft is starting to support mp3. It would be just like Microsoft to try to squash the software engineering division of Fraunhofer.
Whether their claim is valid or not is meaningless. When they started out, they must have known that the standard wouldn't have caught on so fast if it wasn't open. Now they've waited until it's popular to start milking people. It may be legal, but it's not right, and hopefully they won't get away with it.
They may end up pushing people towards the AAC and VQF formats if they keep this up. Many of the popular players are modular enough to make such a conversion easy. If they start sueing people, just use a different format.
jmd
posted 09-11-98 05:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frauhofer has gone after MP3 encoders based on the widely (and openly?) available ISO sources. This is quite plainly and clearly out of their bounds. To quote from the MPEG-1 FAQ on the Official MPEG Home Page:
drogo.cselt.stet.it
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STANDARDISATION
ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE NORMALISATION
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11
CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO
ISO/IEC IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N
MPEG 96/
June 1996
Source: Leonardo Chiariglione - Convenor
Title: MPEG -1 FAQs
Status: Draft
Q. What kind of support does MPEG provide for implementers of MPEG Audio?
A. MPEG provides different kinds of support to implementers. Firstly, a Technical Report is issued that contains software that describes the decoder and an example encoder. This software can be used by implementers to analyse and to get accustomed with the algorithms, and could be used as a basis for an implementation. This encoder can be used to generate test sequences. The Technical Report is published as part 5 of the standard, i.e. ISO/IEC 11172-5 for MPEG-1 and ISO/IEC 13818-5 for MPEG-2.
Secondly, a conformance document is issued. This document provides guidelines to test conformance to the standard of bitstreams, and conformance of decoders. It also describes the accuracy level that a decoder should meet in order to be called an MPEG audio decoder or a 'high accuracy' MPEG Audio decoder.
An important part of the conformance document is a set of bitstreams and the corresponding reference decoder output, that address several functionalities of the decoder. These bitstreams are extremely valuable for implementers when testing decoder implementations. They can be found at the following FTP-site: ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de.
The conformance document is published as part 4 of the standard, i.e. ISO/IEC 11172-4 for MPEG-1 and ISO/IEC 13818-4 for MPEG-2. In addition to the conformance document, a CD-ROM will be published by MPEG which contains all the reference bitstreams needed when performing the conformance tests of the decoder implementations.
The technical report can be downloaded from the above FTP site, in the directory
/pub/MPEG/audio/mpeg2/software/technical_report
I downloaded the technical report from that site, and there appears to be NO LICENSE from Fraunhofer regarding the production of derivative works from this source. In fact the only mention of Fraunhofer or the IIS is in the sources for
the DEcoder. Furthermore, this text is included in the source archives:
This directory contains the MPEG-1 public source code for the Audio decoder layer 1, 2 and 3 as per printing of CD 11172-5 in April 1994.
The version number is 4.1.
As you can read in the source files work on these files is still in progress and they have not officially been released for public distribution.
Nevertheless we at Fraunhofer Institute have tested the layer 3 part of the Decoder and believe that it is reasonably bug free.
So feel free to evaluate the source code but keep in mind, that no warranties are associated with this software.
While we believe that this software is reasonably bug free and well behaved, we are in no way responsible if this software does not work the way you would expect it to work. No matter if it locks up your computer, garbles your floppy disks or does any other harmful things to your computer - it is entirely your problem.
Fraunhofer - IIS and the authors of this software are not liable for any infringments or damages of third parties' rights in consequence of your use of this software. Fraunhofer - IIS or the authors are in no event liable for, respectively do not warrant the trustworthiness, quality, industrial exploitability, serviceability of this software for the supposed purpose or any other purposes.
From these statements, it sounds Fraunhofer - IIS removes liability for itself from any use of their code in this archive, which looks to be NO PART of the ENCODER in the first place, on first inspection. as far as I can tell, no claim is made on derivative works from this source. In fact, the answer to the question above states that this code "could be used as a basis for an implementation".
Simply put, these guys are blowing a lot of smoke up the public's posterior. It smacks of a similar claim made by Compuserve on the GIF image file format. Is Fraunhofer - IIS really interested in promoting this MP3 as an "open standard"?
They can't possibly be, if they make the claims they are making right now -- IF MP3 is supposed to be TRULY OPEN. ISO recently denied standardization to Sun for the Java programming language since Sun would not give up its position of ownership of Java to allow a standard to be enforced by an official body. "OPEN" DOES NOT MEAN "UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF ONE VENDOR" even if that vendor has some claim to origins. To Fraunhofer - IIS, I say put up with it or call it proprietary, no different from RealAudio or any of the maze of audio formats that compete with MP3.
DynoMutt
posted 09-11-98 06:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can see from this, Fraunhoffer is single-handedly trying to destroy the mp3 phenomenon. I think they either have been pressured by the Media Conglomerates, or they want to suck the system dry to the detriment of all but themselves. Their past non-action alone should be grounds for ignoring this statement from them. I think all the developers of MP3 players and users of the file format should unite to create a legal fund to fight Fraunhoffer's rash action.
I agree with the earlier arguments w/ re: Double Dipping, but there are precedents for the media players, creators, and file formats themselves carrying a surcharge.
rickl
posted 09-11-98 07:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This smells of something similar from quite a while ago...
What's the dominant PC file compression format today? Zip. Why?
From what I recall (let me know if I'm not remembering it all),
the dominant format began as ARC for pc's. It was everywhere, and
then it went commercial and enforced patents or copyright etc.
Everyone got pissed off and along came zip (I think it was there before the arc stuff went commercial), and was accepted and kicked arc right off the map.
That's pretty sketchy and I can't recall much of the details, but I remember how pissed I was reading all about it and grabbed up zip happily.
Well, this audio compression is surely more complex, but when I read about this patent stuff rearing its head, I feel the same way and predict a similar solution.
Ironically, the mp3 hero may indeed turn out to be someone like a microsoft who will come forward with some universal solution and look like a hero... they need some good PR right about now!
Jeez, it's reminding me of the old c compiler licenses that wanted royalties for my code!
Rick
jmd
posted 09-11-98 09:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these freeware/shareware encoders are based on source that is openly available for inspection and more importantly implementations were encouraged. Providing open source inevitably gives rise to optimization of such sources -- this is the principle behind the currently successful Linux 'open source' movement. Many of the freeware encoders were beginning or approach or surpass the Fraunhofer IIS products in performance (encoding time) and audio quality. It's a shame that Fraunhofer IIS has chosen not to compete fairly with these obviously skilled programmers, and in fact is looking to make a quick buck off their work.
As a suggestion to the webmasters of the MP3.com web site, I would encourage them to post a copy of the ISO sources on their site, in the interest of keeping the reference sources available and open for review, implementation and optimization.
Duane
posted 09-11-98 11:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that as a deveoper of an MP3 decoder, which is loosely based on the ISO sources developed by Fraunhofer, I think they have a right to ask for royalties on the patents they develop. However, their patent cannot possibly cover every possible decode/encode algorithm that satisfies the needs of the MPEG-Layer 3 specification , which is a free and open spec. All Fraunhofer did was work out their version of a decoder/encoder. If You use it, pay for it. Otherwise, do what I'm gonna do, and rip it out! All that other stuff about charging a 1% royalty for using the MP3 format to distribute anything is a bunch of hooey.
ALL the MPEG specifications are OPEN! Fraunhofer cannot change that, much as they would like. Anyone can implement a system which satisfies the decode/encode needs for any MPEG spec. If Fraunhofer did not want the MP3 format open, they could have done what Philips did with AAC. For better or worse, they gave MP3 to the public; now they need to find an ethical, LEGAL and ENFORCABLE way to gain their justly deserved rewards. Attempting to strongarm the developers of the world who made this format popular is not the way. Fraunhofer, we made you - we can break you!
tristan
posted 09-12-98 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the MP3 pattent issue. Fraunhofer and Thomson do not have "software" patents. The patents that they want to enforce cover some of the processes that they claim are unavoidable in order to encode/decode MP3. For example, if they have patented the use of a certain type of filter, even though you can implement the filter many different ways, in hardware or in software, you are enfringing on their patented technology if you use that type of filter. This applies whether your software is derived from the ISO source code or not.
So please, leave the "software patent" issue out of this debate, because that is not the issue there. None of the MP3 patents are software patents.
The issue is whether it is OK for someone to distribute free MP3 software. MP3 patent holders feel that it is like someone stealing and now giving away for free a technology that took them years (and a lot of money) to develop. So their position in understandable. They want a return on their investment. Now, it sure is a fine line: If they scare people away from using MP3, they will loose a lot too.
Phoenix
posted 09-12-98 12:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That?s kind of like Ford saying since they own some patents on the assembly line and the car the all other all other car manufactures need to pay the royalties to make cars or even to drive them that?s INSANE and would never be upheld in a court of law there for I say Fraunhofer claims are invalid Besides I might be wrong hear but didint I read something about once something becomes a mpeg starnderd LIKE MP3's have then thay have to allow others to develop the software like Apple now must allow other devepers to make Quick Time software if that is true then Fraunhofer's claims have even less ground then thay allready do
akdragon
posted 09-12-98 12:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They hold the patent to an "inavoidable" procedure in making mp3's?? If that's true, why doesn't Microsoft (or whoever did it first) patent the algorithm to make information displayed on the monitor?? Then they could charge $50 for each time someone turns on a monitor, and $0.01 for each and every single thing that is shown on the screen!! Afterall, the algorithm to make things appear on the screen is an "unavoidable" procedure.
My thoughts is that they are just pissed that they didn't put anything into the original posting of the source code that says people have to pay for it, so they are trying to do something about it now. Is this breach of contract?
tristan
posted 09-12-98 01:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a very interesting editorial on Slashdot.org:
Feature:Explaining MP3/ISO Standards - Where ISO
and Open Source Software Collide
slashdot.org
Pagoda
posted 09-12-98 10:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why bother with Mp3's potential trouble when RIAA and others don't even care about VQF? Even if you're the worst opponent of VQF, you'd still admit it is at least equal to Mp3 or better.
The encoder is free for now, with newer versions coming out, the player is free forever. What more do you want?
the sniper
posted 09-13-98 01:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraunhofer is going to push this to the limit, but why? people like me, people who are mp3 heads, we don't care about copyright (isn't that why its so big, cos we can get somehting for free)
its an open standard. just like the encryption algorithims.
did you guy's know a group called RADIUM has optimised producer pro v2, and made it an external codec again (so you can save a hq mp3 from cool edit) not only is it external, its about 12% faster (i checked, as i didn't believe their claim)
anyway, Fraunhofer can charge for their software (its so easy to download but), but no way can they charge for us to make an mp3.
may be we should look down the road at new standards being finalised by ISO. AAC might get it right yet.
anyway, this is a really interesting development, and i'm sure we'll all being looking to see whats going to happen.
the sniper
CrackrJak
posted 09-13-98 01:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so
When Automobiles were first invented the designs to make them were free to the public, only after they became "successful" did the designers want any money.
This smacks of the same non-sense, There was absolutely NO
"license agreement" distributed with the source code. In short,
if you give away something free, don't demand to get paid for it later.
Patent or not, it doesn't make a difference.
For example "Aspirin", used to be a patented formula and "brand name" in Germany before world war 1, they lost it after that war and it is very common now. Should that company now decide to "take action" against every manufacturer that makes it ?
Patents are only as good as long as they enforced, as soon as they are not enforced and or widely "given" away the patent holder has no recourse. There are plenty of law case studies citing this fact, all over the world.
ModelX
posted 09-13-98 05:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion the patent 5742735 is void, because it's a bit
late to the game. Encoders with described functionality have
been around for years before the patent was issued.
Patent 5579430 seems valid. But again, at places it's too
general and at places too specific, so that encoder/decoder
writers could get around.
Regarding the bitstreams, I think FHG cannot claim ownership
of the bitstreams, not even a royalty per bitstream sold.
In fact they shot their foot by releasing a public encoder
without such a claim included.
What I really think is that they got interested in money
only, and since they managed to get into Win98 with their
encoder/decoder they are really interested to wipe out
all the competition (obviously they learn from Micro$oft),
so they will keep getting royalties. Plus, big record
companies are on their side.
Btw, does windows display any message of MP3 ownership
when you convert to MP3 ? My version does not ! So why
don't they sue Microsoft. Their OS encodes to MP3 without
respecting their claimed rights. Obviously, something stinks.
km
Administrator posted 09-13-98 06:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please see next posting.
[This message has been edited by km (edited 09-13-98).]
km
Administrator posted 09-13-98 06:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi there.
pagoda you are (again) spamming the board.
what part of:"fraunhofer enforces patent claims-shuts down free mp3 encoders" is it you dont understand.
its funny with you vqf guys, i wrote first article of this subject and vqf com stole it.(without asking me)
when i (or others) try to post subjects like "comparing mp3 to vqf" at vqf-board we are attacked by you and others and told to get out and keep the board for vqf-related issues only.
apparently you have 2 sets of rules or what???
bye km
ps. and no i dont think best of vqf is on level with best of mp3 and vqf is far from free either.
(one slow encoder.....and no source available)
as for riaa and vqf i see two ways it can go, either vqf can go away with nobody really noticing it (most likely)
and if it should gain in popularity (which i doubt) riaa shall notice it too and start shutting down vqf pages.
[This message has been edited by km (edited 09-13-98).]
Da Worm
posted 09-13-98 01:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About time MP3 got what it deserves. I don't see what that the fuss is about. MP3 is already an outdated codec/technology. The quality is quite poor (especially on the free encoders). There are new and better codecs like AAC which deliver a smaller file size and higher quality audio.
The Fraunhofer is doing the right thing. How many bands have lost money due to illegal MP3 files. I hear that it numbers in the millions if not the billions. If the fraunhofer is trying to standardize MP3 by requiring liscensing they are taking a step in the right direction. Maybe now the RIAA will get it together and shut down all the illegal MP3 sites out there and put MP3 were it belongs.
What I don't understand is why you guys supporting Mp3 are still fighting a loosing battle. There are so many better codecs out there that are legit. Get with it, move on, and get over it.
Pagoda
posted 09-13-98 02:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is where you are wrong km....www.mp3.com is a general purpose audio compression site including everything from Mp3 to AAC. Comments on VQF are also welcomed here. Whereas www.vqf.com is a specialized site for VQF only. You do not see Winamp anywhere on there do you? Next time, post after you think.
As for the article, I also critisized Joe for blatantly copying it from you. You "VQF guys" did not copy your article, Joe did. So butt off and get the FACTS straight. You piss me off like an uneducated child thinking they're always right.
Oddball
posted 09-14-98 03:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This smacks of the dirty tricks that Compuserve tried a while back whereby they let everyone use their LZW compression algorithm for free in graphics packages for the .GIF format. Then when it had reached saturation point they tried to make everyone pay a license fee for it when it had been previously free to use. Surely this is not legal? Maybe some law bods should dig deeper on what the actual rights of each concerned party are on this issue. I personally think it "stinks" of greed from Fraunhofer.
Bill
posted 09-14-98 03:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to keep the facts straight here. Compuserve did not cause the 'gif' controversy that being attributed to it, Unisys did. Unisys (like IIS here) decided to enforce there patents on LHA, they approached Compuserve (the creator of the GIF format) and demmanded they license the patents. Compuserve's attempts at collecting license fees were an attempt to put a group of the CIS aplication under one umbrella license. It is legal, but it also gave rise to the popularity of jpg.
peterd
posted 09-15-98 01:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patents are a funny thing. It's easy for a layman to read a patent and decide that "it doesn't apply", yet there are a number of factors that go into determining if there is violation. The thing that gets patented is a process. There are a set of steps or elements to this process and to infringe the patent, you must repeat the steps/elements in a substantially similar fashion. While clever developers can get around this many times, it is often very hard to do. Simply rewriting a piece of code is no garrantee.
This is an area best left to the experts. There are lawfirms that make a living doing this. Perhaps there is a patent attorney that would like to come forward and "pro-bono" some help here. (all the ones I know are money grubbers!)
Phil Howard
posted 09-15-98 10:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Fraunhofer really wanted to promote the MP3 standard, they
would have made an effort to bolster it through the freeware
infrastructure that necessarily will exist around whatever will
succeed. They only did this half way, allowing decoders, but
not encoders, to be distributed freely without license fees.
Shame on them.
There will be the issue of whether the patent is valid or not,
but that may not be the issue that determines whether Fraunhofer
prevails. Merely the threat of having to defend against them
could result in basically giving up.
I love MP3 but I'm not dedicated to the format. What I like so
much about MP3 can be had in any open standard format, and of
course would most especially be enjoyed for a standard not in
any way based on intellectual property (or if so, freely shared).
It appears AAC comes from Fraunhofer, too, so it is surely not
viable to replace MP3.
If an alternative to MP3 is to succeed, it will do so much more
effectively if that standard is chosen sooner rather than later.
Choosing one sooner make the transition much easier, and will
enable a larger level of support that can overwhelm patented
technology (whether valid or not) such as MP3 or AAC.
But if there is to be an alternative to MP3, whatever it is will
have to be revealed now or soon (if it is now or soon will be
under development). It MUST be an open standard (documentation
must be available on the web) and MUST be free of intellectual
property limitations that inhibit growth. This means freeware
must have no fees, even if distribution costs are paid for, and
royalties for commercial usage must be reasonable and in
proportion to the cost scale of the product. But if the patent
owner makes it a freely shared patent, or the standard is simply
free of patents, then that would be ideal.
Does anyone yet have such a standard? What will become the PNG
of the music world? And will there be support for it and will
there be division?
raindog
posted 09-16-98 08:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd point out that Fraunhofer has demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of how the Internet standards market works - they wanted about US$70 for the miserable WinPlay3 player originally, and $200+ for the lousy command line encoder. If anything, the format has succeeded thus far *despite* their actions rather than because of them. Remember MMP?
I'd love to see the equivalent of a PNG for audio, but don't forget, PNG has been out for about four years now and most browsers currently in use still don't support it. It's also a lossless format whose files tend to be bigger than JPG (though smaller than GIF which it replaced.)
Of course, there's always layer 2; if someone managed to make a free variable-rate encoder ala Philips' proprietary jobber, it could be almost as good as layer 3.
km
Administrator posted 09-17-98 01:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi there.
a bit off subject perhaps, when you talk about mp2 may i point out that i/we conducted some tests here.
all listeners preferred mp2-192 over mp3(128-192)! so what are you talking about with "almost as good"? its actually better.
bye km
ps. further discussions about this subject should go to general mp3 questions.
raindog
posted 09-17-98 11:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to debate; I was speaking only in terms of the most prevalent applications (i.e. 128Kbps.)
sword
posted 09-17-98 02:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the patents that Fraunhofer is enforcing, you'll see that they just got the patents finished this year, but that the original applications were first filed in 1989... 1989? but there wasn't any mp3 then? nope, because the filed an original patented for some sort of Encoding/Decoding process, and then kept submitting new applications adding info to the old ones or changing things, until they figured out how to actually perform the process they originally filed the patent for. This is a very easy way to beat the Patent system. It means that you could start the patent process now for something that won't be commerically viable for 10 years from now, but as long as you keep the application going, you can fill in the blanks of how to perform the process you are actually patenting. Its a combination of two old tricks in Patent law, keep submitting applications to hold off the filing until the blanks can be filled in, and keeping the patent hidden when you know people are using it, but only one of them, the submarine tactic (where you can hold a patent for years until everyone is using the technology, and then, when its too late for them to change, tell them you own the Patent and demand money) might be changed in the recent modifications to Patent law. The courts though, still favor the person who holds the patent, as evident by the recent cases against the guy who holds the patent on bar codes against the Car Companies. He kept his bar code patent secret for years and years until everyone is using bar codes then told the world they had to pay him money to use them. And he wins in court against those that challenge it.
Patent law sucks, but there is no way that Fraunhofer can really enforce it, except against companies, not people.
What i suggest is that Open Source encoder/decoder code be posted in a Usenet group, so Fraunhofer could never shut down the site carrying it, then they have no way of harming.
I just hope that all this doesn't affect the release of the Diamond Rio...
Joey
posted 09-17-98 11:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that all this fuss is just all smoke in the wind. I've read the letter and they can claim what license fees that they want. The value of the license is the point of the matter and in my opinion its worth nothing.
For one thing, patents can be improved upon. With algorithms this is simple enough. So if you add something to improve the patent then their patent is basically worthless.
Secondly, as far as I know there is no trademark on the terms mp3 or mpeg layer 3. Therefore it is okay to call any file that you want mp3 or with the extention mp3.
I looked at the patents and there is one that features the structure of the file. Basically, one patent applies to the process in coding and decoding the mp3 file. This does not apply to the structure of the mp3 file. Therefore if another process is used to code and decode the file or if an improved process based on this process is developed to code and decode the file then this would make the patent worthless. For example, if you add some sort of noise reduction to the decoding process then you have improved the patent and therefore you can make your own patent or make this information publicaly available.
Now some more interesting facts. Patents are in no way international, there would have to be a patent in every country of the world for this to be the case. Unrelated to the first fact is that the Internet is international. This would affect the value of the patent.
I must add a disclaimer. This is in no way legal advice and must not be interpreted as such.
jkwan
posted 09-30-98 09:14 A |
