4 ms·

It seems really strange that a library that wraps FFMpeg is being discontinued due to patent concerns with the underlying codecs, but those codecs are only impl

by Gormo 2y ago

It seems really strange that a library that wraps FFMpeg is being discontinued due to patent concerns with the underlying codecs, but those codecs are only implemented in FFMpeg itself, which continues along without issues.

amiga386 2y ago
ffmpeg, VLC and its associated projects are hosted in France. There aren't any US companies for the MAFIAA to shakedown, and if they tried to file for software patent infringement in France, the French courts would tell them to fuck off. So they go after ffmpeg's US-based users/customers instead.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Do French courts enforce patents differently?
  - amiga386 2y ago
    France was one of the first countries in Europe to ban software patents, in 1968. France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.
    - palata 2y ago
      US people coming to complain about European regulations in 3... 2... 1...
    - imglorp 2y ago
      The LPF tried to warn everyone. /r/stallmanwasright https://web.archive.org/web/20031013020204/http://progfree.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20031013020204/http://progfree.o...
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.
      - palata 2y ago
        Are those patents for Europe? I guess a French could file for a US patent, right?
      - amiga386 2y ago
        Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention. I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter Perhaps if you'll cite any of those French patents (I note you alluded to "over 300" but managed not to cite any), we can get started on the cancellations
        jcranmer 2y ago
        The first patent I found was EP3975559 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfeb21be39/DK3975559T3.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe...) The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2025-AVC-Attachment-1.pdf https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...
        amiga386 2y ago
        The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO. And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't a technical solution, and what is and isn't novel). So if you want to say "looks like a software patent", the EPO would disagree directly with you, as they literally followed their rules saying don't do that - but the adversary is also trying their best to get software-implementation-fucking patent claims despite those rules. I'd like the EPO to be even stricter, and reject even more claims.
    - somat 2y ago
      Which is why you always present your patent as if it were a mechanical machine. Then in court you need to prove how their mechanism of instructions for a general purpose solver(software) is the same as your patent mechanism. This is sort of a half-joke, But honestly I would not have a problem with software patents if they had to be filed in this manner. The problem I have is with patents that are "existing device (on a computer)" as if putting it on a computer was novel. I feel that patents are a critical legal device. I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. However there are enough people exploiting the patent system itself that it does need some reform. However I am uncertain what that reform should be. A stricter interpretation of novel? a tighter interpretation of infringement? Honestly I am worried about the law of unintended consequences here.
      - amiga386 2y ago
        > I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. Sure. But if it's software: fuck off and use copyright. If people copy you, you're injured, you can show they copied you and obtain damages/injunctions. But if you want monopoly control over an idea, no matter who else comes up with it... that's rent-seeking. Patents don't offer monopolies for fun, they're supposed to advance society by offering incentives for disclosure. The amount of incentive, and the likelyhood of non-disclosure was very different in the past, it certainly doesn't fit for computer software, so soceity shouldn't continue to offer that pact for computer software.
- rs186 2y ago
  Part of me wish that there are teams in China or Russia who can take over the development and ignore all the idiotic demands from these associations.
- ksec 2y ago
  Are you suggesting using ffmpeg in US is illegal? As far as I am aware there are plenty of US companies using ffmpeg.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    Using ffmpeg is not illegal. Any software you write, or even run, may or may not infringe some half-assed patent, and you will never know until the troll wielding it and deliberately trying to keep it hidden, pounces on you, usually demanding money, threatening to use their government-backed exclusive rights to their "invention" so you either pay what they ask, do what they ask, or they sue you for infringement and sometimes win. Larger companies have large troves of patents and they really don't care what's in them, they care that they have lots and you don't, and they can use them to crush you in court unless you give in to whatever they demand. Some companies you know of may already have given in, and may already be paying licensing fees to patent holders. It sickens me. I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you there is an entity, formerly MPEG-LA, now Via Licensing Corp, who maintain a pool of patents that supposedly claim exclusive rights to aspects of some of the video codecs implemented in FFMPEG. If they hear you're making money, and you use video codecs -- ffmpeg's implementation or otherwise -- they may come to shake you down. They get to pick and choose who they accuse of patent infringement. They can do it at any time (before the expiry of the last patent in the pool). They can do it at the point where they'll have maximum leverage over you. Software patents give them that opportunity. Should they get in touch with you, your response should be made in consultation with qualified lawyers. https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html > Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg? > A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question... > Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product? > A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.

by Gormo 2y ago

amiga386 2y ago

ffmpeg, VLC and its associated projects are hosted in France. There aren't any US companies for the MAFIAA to shakedown, and if they tried to file for software patent infringement in France, the French courts would tell them to fuck off. So they go after ffmpeg's US-based users/customers instead.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Do French courts enforce patents differently?
- amiga386 2y ago
  France was one of the first countries in Europe to ban software patents, in 1968. France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.
  - palata 2y ago
    US people coming to complain about European regulations in 3... 2... 1...
  - imglorp 2y ago
    The LPF tried to warn everyone. /r/stallmanwasright https://web.archive.org/web/20031013020204/http://progfree.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20031013020204/http://progfree.o...
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.
    - palata 2y ago
      Are those patents for Europe? I guess a French could file for a US patent, right?
    - amiga386 2y ago
      Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention. I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter Perhaps if you'll cite any of those French patents (I note you alluded to "over 300" but managed not to cite any), we can get started on the cancellations
      - jcranmer 2y ago
        The first patent I found was EP3975559 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfeb21be39/DK3975559T3.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe...) The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2025-AVC-Attachment-1.pdf https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...
        amiga386 2y ago
        The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO. And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't a technical solution, and what is and isn't novel). So if you want to say "looks like a software patent", the EPO would disagree directly with you, as they literally followed their rules saying don't do that - but the adversary is also trying their best to get software-implementation-fucking patent claims despite those rules. I'd like the EPO to be even stricter, and reject even more claims.
  - somat 2y ago
    Which is why you always present your patent as if it were a mechanical machine. Then in court you need to prove how their mechanism of instructions for a general purpose solver(software) is the same as your patent mechanism. This is sort of a half-joke, But honestly I would not have a problem with software patents if they had to be filed in this manner. The problem I have is with patents that are "existing device (on a computer)" as if putting it on a computer was novel. I feel that patents are a critical legal device. I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. However there are enough people exploiting the patent system itself that it does need some reform. However I am uncertain what that reform should be. A stricter interpretation of novel? a tighter interpretation of infringement? Honestly I am worried about the law of unintended consequences here.
    - amiga386 2y ago
      > I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. Sure. But if it's software: fuck off and use copyright. If people copy you, you're injured, you can show they copied you and obtain damages/injunctions. But if you want monopoly control over an idea, no matter who else comes up with it... that's rent-seeking. Patents don't offer monopolies for fun, they're supposed to advance society by offering incentives for disclosure. The amount of incentive, and the likelyhood of non-disclosure was very different in the past, it certainly doesn't fit for computer software, so soceity shouldn't continue to offer that pact for computer software.
rs186 2y ago
Part of me wish that there are teams in China or Russia who can take over the development and ignore all the idiotic demands from these associations.
ksec 2y ago
Are you suggesting using ffmpeg in US is illegal? As far as I am aware there are plenty of US companies using ffmpeg.
- amiga386 2y ago
  Using ffmpeg is not illegal. Any software you write, or even run, may or may not infringe some half-assed patent, and you will never know until the troll wielding it and deliberately trying to keep it hidden, pounces on you, usually demanding money, threatening to use their government-backed exclusive rights to their "invention" so you either pay what they ask, do what they ask, or they sue you for infringement and sometimes win. Larger companies have large troves of patents and they really don't care what's in them, they care that they have lots and you don't, and they can use them to crush you in court unless you give in to whatever they demand. Some companies you know of may already have given in, and may already be paying licensing fees to patent holders. It sickens me. I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you there is an entity, formerly MPEG-LA, now Via Licensing Corp, who maintain a pool of patents that supposedly claim exclusive rights to aspects of some of the video codecs implemented in FFMPEG. If they hear you're making money, and you use video codecs -- ffmpeg's implementation or otherwise -- they may come to shake you down. They get to pick and choose who they accuse of patent infringement. They can do it at any time (before the expiry of the last patent in the pool). They can do it at the point where they'll have maximum leverage over you. Software patents give them that opportunity. Should they get in touch with you, your response should be made in consultation with qualified lawyers. https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html > Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg? > A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question... > Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product? > A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.