On Feb 01, 07 07:02:00 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg#Ogg_codecs>
> >
> > So then those who preach ogg from the hill tops are still
> > not necessarily any more free of patents until they prove
> > that speex and vorbis are not violating someone's patent?
It is actually the other way round: Those who claim to have
patents on speex or vorbis must prove that their claims are valid.
Unless that is proven a patent isn't worth anything.
> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> std::cout << i << std::endl;
> }
>
> I'm sure this violates a software patent as well.
not so sure...
>
> umm... hang on for a minute...
> /me checks...
> /me files a patent for the for loop and gets rich !!!
That may get accepted, but it will be most definitly an invalid patent.
> No, seriously, Vorbis, FLAC and Theora probably violate patents.
Here We can assume that these 'probably violated patents' are invalid.
Can't we?
[...]
> That's exactly why software patents are a ridiculous (but extremely
> dangerous) idea in the first place.
No doubt about the 'ridiculous', but dangerousness becomes relative, once
you strip the FUD off.
>
> Still, with MP3, the question isn't even open. It's pretty clear, and
> it's damn restrictive.
Right. Thomson and Fraunhofer have tried hard to demonstrate the
validity of their patents...
sigh,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\
(/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
