On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Arguably the idea of using psychoacoustic models for compression of audio
> files is novel and not obvious.
Yeah. But they (unfortunately) handle it the other way around... no
charge to
"create" mp3 files... but they charge (patent rights) for the ability to
decode the mp3 file. This is just bass ackwards... if even acceptable!
If I write an mp3 decoder from scratch, and I ship that unique decoder
(open
source or closed proprietary binary) I have not violated anyone's non-trival
mp3 codec creation algorithm. All I have done is "read" the file... and the
purpose of the mp3 creation in the first place is compress audio so that the
public can read the file. There are probably 100 different ways to uniquely
decode the mp3 file from scratch... and all of them should be permitted to be
packaged and sold--- particularly when the mp3 codec is a world standard.
But, we are off the main point--- which is that SOFTWARE PATENTS MUST
DIE !
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
