Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:et4oa5-rhh.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:reply_in_group-20E25E.19092711032008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (2) There are numerous free software implementations of MP3
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> But the point here is that the resolution does not talk about MP3 -
>>> it is about MP-2.
>>>
>>
>> Which is or is not patent encumbered?
>
> Have you tried to find this answer yourself? You can get the ISO MPEG-2
> standard from the ISO website.
>
> Any ISO-standard has to conform to the ISO/IEC IPR policies which
> effectively means that any patents and IPR should be provided either as
> RAND or RAND with no royalties. There is no difference here in MPEG-2,
> OOXML nor ODF.
>
> This was actually one of the things we talked a great deal about in Geneva
> when we drafted the proposal. One of the early editions of the proposal had
> ogg/Vorbis in the text as suggested audio format, but it was removed since
> some countries were worried about referring to formats/techniques outside
> of recognized standardisation organisations.
Afairc, someone from Nokia claimed that it was proprietary. Roy has the
link.
>
> Do note as well, as I have already pointed out, that the word "should" in
> the accepted proposal means that implementing e.g. ISO MPEG-2 is only a
> suggestion - it is not a requirement.
>
>:o)
>
A long-winded way of avoiding the question...
So, is it, or is it not, patent encumbered?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
