Linked by snydeq on Mon 1st Jun 2009 16:27 UTC
Qualcomm showed off a previously unannounced Eee PC running Android at Computex in Taipei. The machine has a 10-inch screen, built-in webcam, and a universal 3G radio that supports all UMTS and CDMA networks on all frequencies used around the world. The 'smartbook' runs on Qualcomm's Snapdragon, a 1GHz ARM processor core that marks a shift away from Intel Atom x86-based netbooks. A second Android-based netbook -- a prototype by contract hardware maker Compal Electronics -- was also demoed at the show. Google, meanwhile, declined to discuss what steps it is taking to adapt the smartphone OS for laptops.
Thread beginning with comment 366611
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Left hand meet right hand
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 06:25
in reply to "RE[5]: Left hand meet right hand"
Member since:2007-02-17
Software patents as a concept are ridiculous, but that doesn't justify pretending they don't exist.
They exist in the US, insofar as the USPTO has issued them. AFAIK, none of them have survived an actual court challenge. The general idea of codecs has reams of prior art. Specific codecs differ from others only in respect of the mathematics they use, and even in the US, despite USPTO's behaviour, you cannot patent mathematics.
Bliski is going up for review with SCOTUS, which is hopefully a good thing in terms of reinforcing the level of ridiculousness, but for now the reality is that patents are a minefield for any commercial company distributing products in a jurisdiction where they are held valid. Just ask SanDisk, who had their MP3 players seized under an injunction by a German court, for not paying licensing fees. Philosophical arguments on the part of free software are legitimate, but they don't negate reality.
The reality being that one cannot without risk simply distribute codecs (even if you have rights to the source code) with a product you wish to sell in the US.
Sadly, agreed. I feel somewhat for US residents in this respect.
"So in using w32codecs you could fall foul of copyright law, if it can be shown that you are distributiong a copy of someone else's code. they are x86 only anyway, so of no use to ARM.
Considering the w32codecs are lifted from Windows and therefore MS code, you're correct, they will generally fall foul of copyright law in any jurisdiction. " Agreed. there is no proper role for w3codecs on a Linux system IMO.
"ffmpeg/libavcodec OTOH is not a copy of proprietary code. There should be no problem distributing it.
Clean room coding doesn't magically protect one from patent infringement. " It does in all countries in which the codecs are not patented. That is most of them.
OSS implementations of patented codecs are still patent infringements.
Not in most countries.
Note, as I said above, I think software patents are BS, but they are a legitimate obstacle for any commercial organization hoping to leverage OSS in a business model. At the end of the day, multi-billion dollar organizations like Asus can't simply dismiss the risk of patent infringement because the community decides they're invalid. Microsoft just got hit with a $200M judgement because of some freaking company that claims a patent on interpreting XML in documents. It's pathetic, but any commercial organization has to take that risk/liability into concern. The mainstream vendors simply can't ship a netbook with ffmpeg as a solution for codec compatibility, the exposure/liability is to high.
Agreed. This means only that the codecs package cannot be shipped fully. Only some codecs can be shipped in the default installation. However, most distributions will tell you what packages are missing when you try to play a file which requires a codec.
For example, Amarok will tell you that you need to install the libxine-ffmpeg package if you try to play an .mp3 file. If you then try to install package libxine-ffmpeg, the package manager will tell you that you need to enable the restricted-extras repository (or something like that). Enable the repository, and then libxine-ffmpeg is installable. With libxine-ffmpeg installed, Amarok can then play .mp3 files.
Its not rocket science.
Yet the Kubuntu distribution was not shipped with a .mp3 codec.
I only bring this up because I find that, too often, the free software community is too willing to point to solutions like this and say "problem solved". It's not solved. It won't happen. The community is free to download "illegal" codecs at will, but manufacturers can't include them, and that simply adds an extra roadblock.
They are not illegal at all in most countries. It is not at all difficult to install them post delivery.
Asus et al. will have to shell out for licenses, much as fluendo does, if they want to legitimize the popular proprietary codecs on a free platform.
If I were Asus, I would NOT distribute them (because of the risk). But I would have the software state that the required codec is not installed, and name the package that included the required codec (that is legal in most countries).
Meanwhile, for the US only, there are legal codecs available for purchase. Google for "fluendo".
The market has become too addicted to YouTube et al., with videos on demand.
That is a bad example. Adobe have opened up the .flv specification, and given permission for anyone to write software to play such files. Gnash and swfdec, either one of which will allow you to play youtube videos, are perfectly legal codecs everywhere. The .flv codec which is part of ffmpeg (which allows for example VLC to play downloaded flash videos) is likewise perfectly legal.
As long as the content providers and purveyors support proprietary codecs, it will hinder widespread FLOSS adoption. It would be better for the community to only accept standards like OGG.
... and .swf and .flv. Theora, Vorbis, Dirac, FLAC ... there are actually quite a number available. You don't even need OGG, you can use Matroska instead.
Sure, it sucks compared to the alternatives,
Vorbis is better than .mp3. Theora is catching up, and recently almost gained parity with H264.
but sacrifice is required if the community truly wants open standards. Dirac may help, if they can get it straight as well. And if users aren't willing to sacrifice in order to accept free codecs, then the proprietary ones have pretty much justified their existence. But in the mean time, it helps nothing to pretend that the patents are meaningless just because they are vacuous in some jurisdictions and not others.
Why? All it means to most of the people on the planet is that they have to follow a few extra steps to get multimedia to play. This is no different to Windows.
The vendors will not adopt the OSS work-arounds. This is an issue that needs to be addressed as aggressively as the ODF issue was, at gov't levels.
Yes. It shouldn't be an issue, and the US seriously needs to fix this problem. But in most places, it isn't really a problem, but more like an annoyance.
Edited 2009-06-02 06:38 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-13
Software patents as a concept are ridiculous, but that doesn't justify pretending they don't exist. Bliski is going up for review with SCOTUS, which is hopefully a good thing in terms of reinforcing the level of ridiculousness, but for now the reality is that patents are a minefield for any commercial company distributing products in a jurisdiction where they are held valid. Just ask SanDisk, who had their MP3 players seized under an injunction by a German court, for not paying licensing fees. Philosophical arguments on the part of free software are legitimate, but they don't negate reality.
Considering the w32codecs are lifted from Windows and therefore MS code, you're correct, they will generally fall foul of copyright law in any jurisdiction.
Clean room coding doesn't magically protect one from patent infringement. OSS implementations of patented codecs are still patent infringements. Note, as I said above, I think software patents are BS, but they are a legitimate obstacle for any commercial organization hoping to leverage OSS in a business model. At the end of the day, multi-billion dollar organizations like Asus can't simply dismiss the risk of patent infringement because the community decides they're invalid. Microsoft just got hit with a $200M judgement because of some freaking company that claims a patent on interpreting XML in documents. It's pathetic, but any commercial organization has to take that risk/liability into concern.
The mainstream vendors simply can't ship a netbook with ffmpeg as a solution for codec compatibility, the exposure/liability is to high. I only bring this up because I find that, too often, the free software community is too willing to point to solutions like this and say "problem solved". It's not solved. It won't happen. The community is free to download "illegal" codecs at will, but manufacturers can't include them, and that simply adds an extra roadblock.
Asus et al. will have to shell out for licenses, much as fluendo does, if they want to legitimize the popular proprietary codecs on a free platform.
The market has become too addicted to YouTube et al., with videos on demand. As long as the content providers and purveyors support proprietary codecs, it will hinder widespread FLOSS adoption.
It would be better for the community to only accept standards like OGG. Sure, it sucks compared to the alternatives, but sacrifice is required if the community truly wants open standards. Dirac may help, if they can get it straight as well. And if users aren't willing to sacrifice in order to accept free codecs, then the proprietary ones have pretty much justified their existence.
But in the mean time, it helps nothing to pretend that the patents are meaningless just because they are vacuous in some jurisdictions and not others. The vendors will not adopt the OSS work-arounds. This is an issue that needs to be addressed as aggressively as the ODF issue was, at gov't levels.