[asterisk-users] is g729 codec free? or under license???

[Darryl Moore]

Thank you Steve, and I read a bit more on the web on this subject
including your own well reasoned page at
http://www.soft-switch.org/patents/index.html

However, despite wide acceptance of the patentability of such codecs
(unfortunately), whether they are in fact software patents or not
appears to be a matter of opinion. The FSF and Fedora both refer to
codec patents as being software patents. 

http://endsoftpatents.org/2011/02/usa-patent-reform-not-enough/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents

A quick google search of both terms will show that there are a great
many people who see codec patents as software patents, so I don't think
I am alone there.

Though I think I can see how you differentiate them, I'm not sure there
are any simple rules on how you draw that line between them, and that is
very problematic.

Before the advent of powerful personal computers, codec patents would
have few societal issues. I think now, the harm caused by these patents
are greater than the benefit. Much like the harm caused by current
copyright laws out weigh the current benefits.

I was disappointed to read that New Zealand's patent reforms did not go
as far as to invalidate codec patents, but I do look forward to g.729
entering the PD in 2016ish and joining MP3s which also recently became
an unencumbered format in most countries.



On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 00:13 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
> On 10/05/2013 11:07 PM, Darryl Moore wrote:
> >
> > [blink]
> >
> > umm... they are software patents.
> >
> Really? Do you have expert legal opinion on that? I've never seen anyone 
> competent dispute the patentability of applied signal processing. Such 
> patents get issued all over the world. There are a couple of software 
> patents related to G.729, but those are not part of the essential pool 
> of patents, and those are probably US only.