ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Will Apple put its lawyers behind the open codec patent attack?

By | May 3, 2010, 7:02am PDT

Summary: Should Apple be a contributor to the patent pool Steve Jobs mentioned, that would be very bad news because then the objective may very well be to prevent any commercial use and distribution of Ogg Theora and other open-source video codecs.

Regardless of the merits of a case against open codecs Ogg Theora and VP8 for patent infringement a very important question remains unanswered.

Who will pay the lawyer bills?

NoSoftwarePatents founder Florian “Floyd” Mueller (left), who was last seen here being panned for fighting the Oracle acquisition of mySQL, fears it may be Apple.

“While Microsoft doesn’t try to force any Android phone vendor out of the market, Apple uses some of its own patents very aggressively in order to prevent such companies as HTC from providing certain functionality at all,” Mueller wrote me late last week.

“It’s important to see the difference from the perspective of competitors and consumers: the worst thing that can happen with patents is if vendors, especially leading ones, use their patents for exclusionary purposes.

“Should Apple be a contributor to the patent pool Steve Jobs mentioned, that would be very bad news because then the objective may very well be to prevent any commercial use and distribution of Ogg Theora and other open-source video codecs.”

Mueller has long been concerned with the patent status of open source codecs, writing at FOSS Patents after Google announced VP8 would be open source that multimedia is a patent minefield.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s Google or any other vendor or a FOSS project: there’s no such thing as a multimedia data format that anyone can absolutely guarantee to be unencumbered by patents.

This is one reason Mueller, who started in this business as a 16-year old computer journalist in 1986, launched his campaign against software patents.

All this makes the pending decision in Bilski vs. Kappos, still unknown at this writing, so important. A decision that encourages Apple to proceed, especially against Google, may make for the biggest lawsuit of all time.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

19
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Will Apple put its lawyers behind the open codec patent attack?
gaberdiye03 Updated - 21st Jun
@No_Ax_to_Grind This is the John Roberts court you're talking about.
They haven't ruled against a big business since he took the chair.
Big patent holders are pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15 safe against any obviousness or prior art claims.
Little holders are dead in the water.
It's just the way Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas think.
0 Votes
+ -
Jobs may well be playing with fire. ANYTHING that would bring a software patents test case would pose a huge multi billion dollar risk to patent holders at large. As it is free software is at most an irritation. The very threat of patent litigation means that most users, especially commercial users, still avoid free software, ESPECIALLY expensive niche software where patents are easily enforcible and extremely difficult to effectively challenge. But if the concept of software patents itself goes before the high court due to the efforts some hard head like Jobs, all bets are off. Especially if the resulting case smells of an effort at imposing a monopolistic power grab. If I were a major software patent holder at this point, I would be very afraid of what sort of loose cannon Jobs might represent on this issue. And this, of course, does not even touch on the rather probable possibility that patents could be thrown out wholesale on failing the obviousness test as a result of something like this. Jobs is really fired up over this. So was SCO. That makes for the possibility that this could end up being a real SCO redux. Except in this case, the loser would not only be Apple, but they would take with them software patent holders everywhere.
0 Votes
+ -
I think you are practicing wishful thinking.
No_Ax_to_Grind 3rd May 2010
Sorry.
You are Very correct,FOSS wants nothing but a free ride,they want softweare the way they want it ,not there users,i say users because Very very few actually PAY for anything FOSS. They want a free ride oh other education news and peoples dimes. l
0 Votes
+ -
Oh....
IssacS 3rd May 2010
Considering the mess that is patents currently, You might have a point there. If that does happen however.... it would be corporate suicide for all those involved.
0 Votes
+ -
Relax!
mykmlr@... 3rd May 2010
This is the John Roberts court you're talking about.
They haven't ruled against a big business since he took the chair.
Big patent holders are safe against any obviousness or prior art claims.
Little holders are dead in the water.
It's just the way Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas think.
0 Votes
+ -
Complete crap!
Johnny Vegas 3rd May 2010
They follow the LAW. When big business is right they win, when the little guy is right they win.
All this makes the pending decision in Bilski vs. Kappos, still unknown at this writing, so important. A decision that encourages Apple to proceed, especially against Google, may make for the biggest lawsuit of all time. a
0 Votes
+ -
I see a real problem with his view.
No_Ax_to_Grind 3rd May 2010
"?It?s important to see the difference from the perspective of competitors and consumers: the worst thing that can happen with patents is if vendors, especially leading ones, use their patents for exclusionary purposes."


Isn't that the very reason patents exist? Isn't the goal to grant them a limited time monopoly on their patented technology?

Not aruging for or agaisnt patents, (thats an argument for another day) but "when in Rome..."
It doesn't matter I have no idea how to do it, I just patent the concept of it.

And on the day someone discovers how to actually create it, I (or my decendents) can sue for infringement.
coming up with algorithms and/or even strategies
for speeding up the encoding and decoding video
is incredibly specific.. there is nothing
theoretical about it at all.. as i say, you guys
just don't know of what you speak..
0 Votes
+ -
Not either-or but both-and
DevGuy_z 3rd May 2010
There are definite abuses of patents as well as good patents. I doubt the posters that you are responding to, fail to recognize that there are many patents that are legit, based on a specific technology. But in the software area there's a lot of junk patents too.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, YOU'VE got it wrong.
AzuMao 3rd May 2010
It isn't these whole programs that are patented, each one being a single patent. No. The programs, even when created by other people, that match any of (very large number) of these patents, is extremely likely in any program of any complexity nowadays.
0 Votes
+ -
There's nothing nafarious going on here...
Patents are soley to preserve the rights of the inventor, not to restrict technological advancement at all. They give the inventor the right to collect reasonable and fair royalties for their invention, not to withhold it.
0 Votes
+ -
You are Very correct
Stan57 3rd May 2010
You are Very correct,FOSS wants nothing but a free ride,they want softweare the way they want it ,not there users,i say users because Very very few actually PAY for anything FOSS. They want a free ride oh other peoples dimes.

Its Just that simple!
Its not called FOSS for nothing AAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
  • Flagged
@No_Ax_to_Grind This is the John Roberts court you're talking about.
They haven't ruled against a big business since he took the chair.
Big patent holders are pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15 safe against any obviousness or prior art claims.
Little holders are dead in the water.
It's just the way Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas think.
0 Votes
+ -
Moved
John Zern Updated - 3rd May 2010
moved
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix