AT&T, MPEG-4 and licensing...?

[bobbywipplewits]

I tried to find info in the forums on this topic, but came up with nothing. My guess is I missed it...? :o

Anyway, it appears AT&T may hold patents(?) that affect MPEG-4...? :eek: . PCMagazine has an article (I found out about this on TomsHardware).

Will this affect Xvid or x264? :confused: (wishing Sharktooth well, btw) :(

I apologize if this has already been discussed.

[celtic_druid]

Can't see how it would effect either since they only release source code.

[bobbywipplewits]

If a portion of that source code is intellectual property of another entity, can the owning entity seek legal action? DVDDecrypter had to give up the whole app. due to one company pushing for a little feature used in the prog...source code and all, as I understood...though funding lawyers was the bigger motivation for dropping dev.

Is this case different simply because the code has been run through a linker/loader/compiler by a 3rd party? (I don't know the answer to my question, but, not knowing the law, it seems a weak argument as the linker/loader/compiler aren't the assets...the source code is the asset.)

It just seems if AT&T sets their sights on any smaller coder, lawyer-funding again will kill the app. development... :mad::(

[celtic_druid]

DVD Decrypter was taken down by Macrovision. It was presumably about removing the macrovision flag. DVD Decrypter was only ever released as a binary and it never went to court so you couldn't really take it as a precident.

XviD and x264 follow MPEG-4 standards but the code is all written by their devs so the code is their intellectual property and as long as it remains just as code, then as I understand it, it doesn't breach any patents. Neither pays money to the MPEG-LA and therefor neither would need to pay money to AT&T if their claim should turn out to be valid.

I don't quite get though if AT&T do own valid patents, then why aren't they part of the MPEG-LA? and how come they only just noticed that they had these patents? Also I saw Apple, CyberLink and DivX mentioned but not Microsoft. Surely MS would be a valid target with WMV9/VC-1? Shouldn't paying the MPEG-LA protect you from such anyway?

[bobbywipplewits]

>> "XviD and x264 follow MPEG-4 standards but the code is all written by their devs so the code is their intellectual property and as long as it remains just as code, then as I understand it, it doesn't breach any patents. Neither pays money to the MPEG-LA and therefor neither would need to pay money to AT&T if their claim should turn out to be valid."

I really hope these apps. stay out of AT&T's grasp for the reasons you mention.

>> "I don't quite get though if AT&T do own valid patents, then why aren't they part of the MPEG-LA? and how come they only just noticed that they had these patents?"

It was suggested (and would not surprise me) that this is intentional. Let the popularity grow to the point where the chances are greatly increased that real dollars will be provided by the companies that unknowingly used the patented material to the point of profitability. Seems hard to believe companies the size of Apple would not have been able to find something in a patent search...assuming a search took place.

>> "Also I saw Apple, CyberLink and DivX mentioned but not Microsoft. Surely MS would be a valid target with WMV9/VC-1? Shouldn't paying the MPEG-LA protect you from such anyway?"

If what you mentioned above about writing your own MPEG code being exempt is correct, does this imply Apple, etc. did not write their own version or borrowed someone's (AT&T) code?

[bond]

patents are a minefield :D

[Joe Fenton]

>> "Also I saw Apple, CyberLink and DivX mentioned but not Microsoft. Surely MS would be a valid target with WMV9/VC-1? Shouldn't paying the MPEG-LA protect you from such anyway?"

If what you mentioned above about writing your own MPEG code being exempt is correct, does this imply Apple, etc. did not write their own version or borrowed someone's (AT&T) code?

Software patents are pretty strange - since the source code is a description of the patented thing, you can't be hassled over releasing source since the point of a patent is to make the description available to anyone in exchange for a cut of the money on the END PRODUCT. The end product for software is a program or driver, so distributing source is okay, but distributing an app or driver is not. Apple, et. al., are being put on notice because they ship an end product - an app or driver, not the source.

And about the other person's question about whether paying MPEG-LA should protect you, check MPEG-LA's web site. Paying them only protects you from THEM. They make no guarantees that other parties won't come out later and sue you over what you're paying MPEG-LA for.

[bobbywipplewits]

>> "The end product for software is a program or driver, so distributing source is okay, but distributing an app or driver is not. Apple, et. al., are being put on notice because they ship an end product - an app or driver, not the source."

If the above is accurate, I presume that local laws (local to the app. distributor) define the final word with regard to any lawsuits brought against the distributor.

If I am correct, I hope that at least one country on this planet stays consumer-friendly...and Doom9 keeps a local presence. ;)

[MfA]

Meh, there's no fundamental difference ... I don't think anyone would ever have the balls to try to sue anyone in the US for distributing source code, given the strong right to free speech, but I could see it happen in countries with more backward laws like say the UK ;)