On Monday 29 January 2007 10:07, Charles philip Chan wrote: > On 29 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I wonder then how is it MP3 is a standard. Aren't standards open by > > default? > > The technical details are out in the open. MP3 is an ISO standard, > however the iso have no requirements that the standard must be patent > free or that the patent holder can't "extort" royalties. MP3 is a > typical bait and switch scam: > > (1) Allow people to use it for free. > > (2) Charge royalties when it is entrenched. > > This page is an interesting read: > > http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
Ahh, thank you: "a lot of people are working on the development of each MPEG standard. But they are all working for companies paying them. It is because this kind of algorithmic research needs a high level of knowledge and a lot of time (in most of the cases it is a full-time job). So the work done by those people is property of their respective employers." It makes sense, then, that Frauenhofer and/or Thomson would want to recoup their costs. I had ASSumed that a standard was open and free, otherwise it wouldn't be a "standard" such as A4 paper or ISO 100 film. -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com closing the doors that surround me so no one will ever penetrate complete my retreat just to wait for the day that never comes so i will laugh alone -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
