3 ms·

Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software; this is generally the model that open source works under in general (see, for e

Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software; this is generally the model that open source works under in general (see, for example, LAME). In many jurisdictions, users can and do pay MPEG-LA licensing fees when using ffmpeg; no "infringement" takes place. I have worked for companies that have used ffmpeg and x264 in their systems; this is extremely standard procedure. Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are much more dubious than in the US.

anamax 17y ago
> Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software "Under certain jurisdictions, there is a particular case of patent infringement called "indirect infringement." Indirect infringement can occur, for instance, when a device is claimed in a patent and a third party supplies a product which can only be reasonably used to make the claimed device." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_patent_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_patent_infringemen...
Locke1689 17y ago
Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are much more dubious than in the US. Most? I was aware that many were, but I know at least a couple are not. However, in my first comment I was very clear that I was speaking only to US developers -- Europeans, feel free to ignore. Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software Not in the United States. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."[1] [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  But they're not making the patented invention; they're making a description (the source code) of the patented invention. They're distributing the source code. Hence the moniker: "Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder" (it's a description of one). On the other hand, distributors of binaries do have to take into account patent laws.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    That is their claim, yes. As far as I know, no one has ever tested this in a US court. I would not be hopeful. Also, the initial term "Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder" referred to their use of the original ISO code along with a patch. Since one would have to use the MPEG/ISO code and you couldn't encode mp3 files only using the LAME patch/library, they avoided the patent issue. Since 2000 they have instead shipped source code with a complete rewrite of the ISO code. They also post a notice that an MP3 patent license may be required for use in some countries. According to the conventional interpretation of US patent law, the US would be one of them. Edit: By the way, don't be fooled, our small legal disagreement doesn't affect my very positive view of you as a person and developer :)

anamax 17y ago

> Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software "Under certain jurisdictions, there is a particular case of patent infringement called "indirect infringement." Indirect infringement can occur, for instance, when a device is claimed in a patent and a third party supplies a product which can only be reasonably used to make the claimed device." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_patent_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_patent_infringemen...

Locke1689 17y ago

Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are much more dubious than in the US. Most? I was aware that many were, but I know at least a couple are not. However, in my first comment I was very clear that I was speaking only to US developers -- Europeans, feel free to ignore. Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software Not in the United States. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."[1] [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html

DarkShikari 17y ago
But they're not making the patented invention; they're making a description (the source code) of the patented invention. They're distributing the source code. Hence the moniker: "Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder" (it's a description of one). On the other hand, distributors of binaries do have to take into account patent laws.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  That is their claim, yes. As far as I know, no one has ever tested this in a US court. I would not be hopeful. Also, the initial term "Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder" referred to their use of the original ISO code along with a patch. Since one would have to use the MPEG/ISO code and you couldn't encode mp3 files only using the LAME patch/library, they avoided the patent issue. Since 2000 they have instead shipped source code with a complete rewrite of the ISO code. They also post a notice that an MP3 patent license may be required for use in some countries. According to the conventional interpretation of US patent law, the US would be one of them. Edit: By the way, don't be fooled, our small legal disagreement doesn't affect my very positive view of you as a person and developer :)