[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[Steve Underwood]

Steve Underwood wrote:

> Kevin Walsh wrote:
>
>> Steve Underwood [steveu at coppice.org] wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Kevin Walsh wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>> Steve Underwood [steveu at coppice.org] wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> Using G.729 without a licence in most of the world's countries is
>>>>> illegal.
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> Not so.  What you say is only true in countries that allow software
>>>> patents.  Countries that don't have any restriction on the freedom of
>>>> ideas, mathematics and business processes etc. would allow the use of
>>>> G.729 without having to pay the monopolist's tax.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be confusing the USA with the free world.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> You seem confused about what is patented in G.729. I don't know of any
>>> software patents on G.729
>>>   
>>
>> Software patents are generally patents on ideas and/or mathematical
>> algorithms, both of which are not patentable in a lot of countries,
>> and rightly so.
>>
>> If you were trying to express the opinion that the G.729 patents are
>> somehow enforceable in the free world then you need to work on
>> expressing your opinions a little more clearly - and preferably with
>> some justification.
>>  
>>
> Why the heck would you expect a signal processing patent to be a 
> problem in any country with patent laws? How does software come into 
> this, at all? The commonest realisation of these things right now is 
> on programmable processors. They are also realised in pure, non 
> programmable, hardware as well. Do you think that by some magic a 
> technique becomes a free for all, just because you implement it in 
> software? Would you see any problem with patenting the hardware 
> realisation of the same things?
>
> These things just ain't software patents. I don't know of any software 
> patents related to G.729.

It may be bad form to reply to your own messages, but.....

Elaborating slightly. If you search the US PTO database you will find 
patents on things like reducing the computational complexity of G.723.1 
and G.729. Those would be classed as algorithmic patents, and you would 
have a problem getting those granted in many countries. However, they 
don't matter very much. They stop you use the most effective method to 
realise the codec. However, they don't stop you using a less efficient 
method to realise the same result. Some of those patents are quite 
recent, and aren't used in many implements, such as the ITU reference 
code, anyway. Don't confuse those algorithmic patents with the more 
basic one that create real road blocks.

Regards,
Steve