<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Wolfgang Spraul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolfgang@qi-hardware.com">wolfgang@qi-hardware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Rakshat,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> > Actually Mplayer plays the MP3 with the user installed plugin (libmad or<br>
> eqvalent). Intone is just the frontend for Mplayer so no patent probs with<br>
> it<br>
<br>
</div>Yes but we have to be careful that MP3 doesn't 'sneak in' somewhere.<br>
The moment anybody is selling a FreeRunner 'capable' of playing MP3, the<br>
patent guys have a case. 'Capable' can be a series of steps, including<br>
installing some software, etc.<br>
However, the moment those steps involve a resource out of control of the<br>
seller of the FreeRunner (say a random Internet URL), they have no case.<br>
<br>
Now with the vast pool of free software, what can easily happen is that MP3,<br>
MP4 etc. 'sneaks into' the product. Then someone downstream forgets that it's<br>
there, or it's very hard to remove, and falls into the trap.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Yes I did follow the Openmoko Mp3 patent issues a long while back.<br><br> I just wanted to ask you if things are ok re MP3 patents in the following scenario<br><br>We sell a device with no 'working' MP3 capablities but a preinstalled Music player. The music player can take plugins and its website visibly recommends downloading a plugin that enables MP3. Is the seller ok in this situation re MP3 patents?<br>
<br>Rakshat<br>