5 ms·

I think you do not need one anymore. The patent were filled in 1997, that's now 20 years ago. See: https://madfileformatscience.garymcgath.com/2016/0/05/mp3pat

I think you do not need one anymore. The patent were filled in 1997, that's now 20 years ago. See: https://madfileformatscience.garymcgath.com/2016/0/05/mp3patent/ https://madfileformatscience.garymcgath.com/2016/0/05/mp3pat... The last two patents seem to be related to an encode optimization and are not needed to write a decoder. Which means it is possible now to include an MP3 decoder in GNU/Linux distros, etc. without paying the $2,500 fee.

poizan42 9y ago
I think 5,703,999 is about shifting between using joint and separated stereo for frames depending on the amount of difference between the channels to avoid cross-channel interference, this sounds like it might still be important for lower bitrate mp3s. I don't think I know the technical details well enough to comment on 5,924,060, but I'll note that it has a priority date of 1986 and publication date of 1999... good riddance to submarine patents.
- yuhong 9y ago
  In any case, it is 17 years after publication or 20 years after filing (before 1995), meaning that both are expired.
  - poizan42 9y ago
    So the Tunequest[0] article referenced got it wrong on the last two? I have a hard time figuring out what applies and does not apply to patents filed between 1995 and 1999 [0]: http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/ http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/