3 ms·

How is an algorithm proprietary if I can go online to the website of the ITU, a division of the United Nations, and download a copy of the standard and go write

How is an algorithm proprietary if I can go online to the website of the ITU, a division of the United Nations, and download a copy of the standard and go write my own implementation? ffmpeg's reverse-engineered Real Video decoder is an open-source implementation of a proprietary specification. Depending on the country and legal interpretation, the mere existence of this is illegal. ffmpeg's H.264 decoder is an open-source implementation of a patented, but not proprietary, specification. ffmpeg's Theora decoder is an open-source implementation of a probably-not-patented specification. If a definition doesn't distinguish between something freely available for all to view/implement and something which cannot even be implemented without potentially falling afoul of copyright laws and the DMCA, it isn't a very good definition.

mmastrac 17y ago
You can implement it, but you are not free to distribute your implementation in binary form, and users are not free to use your algorithm without the consent of the patent holders. That is the definition of proprietary. Regardless of the availability of the specification and full, compliant implementations, you are not free to distribute this code in the United States of America. Microsoft has a patent on the openly-spec'd FAT filesystem and are still pursuing royalty agreements with distributors of FAT code: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... If software patents were removed from the picture in the USA, H.264 would cease to be a proprietary algorithm. Edit: I'm updating this because the reply markers are slowed down to flamewar levels. :) Re: consent of the patent holders, this is guaranteed by the MPEG LA but only in return for royalties paid. You need their permission, which is granted only by paying the royalty.
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  users are not free to use your algorithm without the consent of the patent holders. This is not true. The patent holders signed an agreement when creating the standard that requires them to license to you under reasonable terms. As far as I know, they cannot refuse. This is how the process is carried out for many international standards: nobody wants to risk one of the patent holders going rogue. This is in contrast to something like FAT, which was created by Microsoft, for Microsoft, and is controlled entirely by Microsoft. Quite honestly, I think many of the companies involved would welcome the end of software patents. The amount of legal wrangling they go through in order to avoid legal problems is tremendous, and for H.264, the fee is a mere 10 cents per unit for bulk licensing with a relatively low cap. Hardly enough income for them, IMO, to justify the hassle created by software patents.
  - wavesplash 17y ago
    re: H264 Not all standards bodies require RAND terms, and not all RAND terms are 'reasonable' for individuals. You have to look into each standard and then to the assigned licensing agencies and what they charge for. In the case of H264, the patent pool is licensed by MPEG-LA, and they're anything but free. Here's the overview of the broadcast licensing terms: http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10900 http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10900 more data about licensing can also be found in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
kelnos 17y ago
How is an algorithm proprietary if I can go online to the website of the ITU, a division of the United Nations, and download a copy of the standard and go write my own implementation? Simple: your understanding of the definition of "proprietary" is incorrect. Keeping a technology secret is a sufficient -- but not necessary -- condition of it being proprietary.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Actually this is a case of mixing up "IP" laws ... trade secrets are very different from patents, although patents were partly introduced to encourage companies to open up and to discourage the use of trade secrets. Anyway ... "proprietary" means just what it says ... "exclusively owned by someone" under a trademark, patent or as a trade secret. So to say that H.264 is proprietary is actually correct. On the other hand, H.264 is more open than Real Video, since you can get the specs of the format, an implementation is already available to you and the patents are currently reasonably licensed. That said, the concerns of Mozilla are valid ... we could end up in the same situation as with GIF and MP3 ... although I don't think Theora has any chances to take over since it's technically inferior and H.264 is already accepted as a defacto standard (mostly because of Flash).
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  Or it could be that "open" and "proprietary" are two directions on a continuum, rather than binary, mutually exclusive qualities...
  - kelnos 17y ago
    Well, sure, you could say there are different degrees of "proprietary," but there's really only one "open": 1. Secret spec, patent-encumbered 2. Secret spec, patent-free 3. Open spec, patent-encumbered 4. Open spec, patent-free You can of course expand that out to include other criteria, but... you get the idea. I'd argue that #4 is the only one that's really "open," though a case could be made that #3 is both open and proprietary rather than simply proprietary. Of course there are those who believe #4 isn't really feasible and that some patent somewhere can apply to basically everything... even if the patent holder doesn't know it.

mmastrac 17y ago

You can implement it, but you are not free to distribute your implementation in binary form, and users are not free to use your algorithm without the consent of the patent holders. That is the definition of proprietary. Regardless of the availability of the specification and full, compliant implementations, you are not free to distribute this code in the United States of America. Microsoft has a patent on the openly-spec'd FAT filesystem and are still pursuing royalty agreements with distributors of FAT code: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... If software patents were removed from the picture in the USA, H.264 would cease to be a proprietary algorithm. Edit: I'm updating this because the reply markers are slowed down to flamewar levels. :) Re: consent of the patent holders, this is guaranteed by the MPEG LA but only in return for royalties paid. You need their permission, which is granted only by paying the royalty.

DarkShikari 17y ago
users are not free to use your algorithm without the consent of the patent holders. This is not true. The patent holders signed an agreement when creating the standard that requires them to license to you under reasonable terms. As far as I know, they cannot refuse. This is how the process is carried out for many international standards: nobody wants to risk one of the patent holders going rogue. This is in contrast to something like FAT, which was created by Microsoft, for Microsoft, and is controlled entirely by Microsoft. Quite honestly, I think many of the companies involved would welcome the end of software patents. The amount of legal wrangling they go through in order to avoid legal problems is tremendous, and for H.264, the fee is a mere 10 cents per unit for bulk licensing with a relatively low cap. Hardly enough income for them, IMO, to justify the hassle created by software patents.
- wavesplash 17y ago
  re: H264 Not all standards bodies require RAND terms, and not all RAND terms are 'reasonable' for individuals. You have to look into each standard and then to the assigned licensing agencies and what they charge for. In the case of H264, the patent pool is licensed by MPEG-LA, and they're anything but free. Here's the overview of the broadcast licensing terms: http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10900 http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10900 more data about licensing can also be found in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

kelnos 17y ago

How is an algorithm proprietary if I can go online to the website of the ITU, a division of the United Nations, and download a copy of the standard and go write my own implementation? Simple: your understanding of the definition of "proprietary" is incorrect. Keeping a technology secret is a sufficient -- but not necessary -- condition of it being proprietary.

bad_user 17y ago
Actually this is a case of mixing up "IP" laws ... trade secrets are very different from patents, although patents were partly introduced to encourage companies to open up and to discourage the use of trade secrets. Anyway ... "proprietary" means just what it says ... "exclusively owned by someone" under a trademark, patent or as a trade secret. So to say that H.264 is proprietary is actually correct. On the other hand, H.264 is more open than Real Video, since you can get the specs of the format, an implementation is already available to you and the patents are currently reasonably licensed. That said, the concerns of Mozilla are valid ... we could end up in the same situation as with GIF and MP3 ... although I don't think Theora has any chances to take over since it's technically inferior and H.264 is already accepted as a defacto standard (mostly because of Flash).
mbrubeck 17y ago
Or it could be that "open" and "proprietary" are two directions on a continuum, rather than binary, mutually exclusive qualities...
- kelnos 17y ago
  Well, sure, you could say there are different degrees of "proprietary," but there's really only one "open": 1. Secret spec, patent-encumbered 2. Secret spec, patent-free 3. Open spec, patent-encumbered 4. Open spec, patent-free You can of course expand that out to include other criteria, but... you get the idea. I'd argue that #4 is the only one that's really "open," though a case could be made that #3 is both open and proprietary rather than simply proprietary. Of course there are those who believe #4 isn't really feasible and that some patent somewhere can apply to basically everything... even if the patent holder doesn't know it.