Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Apr 2010 21:40 UTC, submitted by Helge
Legal Well, this certainly explains a whole lot. Both Apple and Microsoft have stated that the legality of Theora is highly debatable, and as it turns out, they knew more than we do - most likely courtesy of their close involvement with the MPEG-LA. Responding to an email from Free Software Foundation Europe activist Hugo Roy, Steve Jobs has stated that a patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora. Update: Monty Montgomery of Xiph (Ogg and Theora's parent organisation) has responded on Slashdot: "If Jobs's email is genuine, this is a powerful public gaffe ('All video codecs are covered by patents'). He'd be confirming MPEG's assertion in plain language anyone can understand. It would only strengthen the pushback against software patents and add to Apple's increasing PR mess. Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don't really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs."
Thread beginning with comment 421935
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Which patents?
by tyrione on Sat 1st May 2010 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
Member since:

"It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.

I think when it comes to patents, there should be some kind of law that, if you're going to threaten somebody with a patent lawsuit, then you must list the specific patent (or patents) that you feel are being violated. In other words, either shit or get off the pot. None of this 'you may be violating one or more of our patents' BS.

Since those patents are publicly listed, if you're going to create a video codec you'd better check before you invest.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Which patents?
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
l3v1 Member since:

Since those patents are publicly listed, if you're going to create a video codec you'd better check before you invest.

Then you'd better stop coding any video coding related algorithm whatsoever. There are just so many alorithms and variations that form the basis of almost all codecs; above them the precious patent system let everyone&dog patent every damn small piece of crap they could come up with. In the end what you get is a damn high wall of stone around you.

The only solution is to come up with an idea that is so groundbeakingly new that nobody has ever tried to patent it - and you're f*cked, since creating, implementing, testing and transforming into an all-usable version a new video coding algorithm could take so many man-months of research and coding most people can't even imagine.

And then you'll need to proove you're as good or better than others, which will be followed by everyone else threatening with lawsuits, and so on and so forth.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Which patents?
by Radio on Sat 1st May 2010 21:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
Radio Member since:

Tyrione > Ever heard of submarine patents ?

Edited 2010-05-01 21:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Which patents?
by marcp on Sat 1st May 2010 12:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
marcp Member since:

Oh, really? Imagine creating a knife and having to look closely to every friggin' knife on the planet, just so you don't infringe any artificial PATENT. C'mon!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Which patents?
by Bobthearch on Sat 1st May 2010 16:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
Bobthearch Member since:

Huh? Cutlery companies are VERY active in patenting their designs and technologies, and defending those patents.

Edited 2010-05-01 16:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2