MP3 'capable' [was: Meida player.]

Al Johnson openmoko at mazikeen.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 10 20:07:54 CEST 2009


On Thursday 10 September 2009, rakshat hooja wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Wolfgang Spraul <wolfgang at qi-
hardware.com>wrote:
> > Rakshat,
> >
> > > >  Actually Mplayer plays the MP3 with the user installed plugin
> > > > (libmad
> >
> > or
> >
> > > eqvalent). Intone is just the frontend for Mplayer so no patent probs
> >
> > with
> >
> > > it
> >
> > Yes but we have to be careful that MP3 doesn't 'sneak in' somewhere.
> > The moment anybody is selling a FreeRunner 'capable' of playing MP3, the
> > patent guys have a case. 'Capable' can be a series of steps, including
> > installing some software, etc.
> > However, the moment those steps involve a resource out of control of the
> > seller of the FreeRunner (say a random Internet URL), they have no case.
> >
> > Now with the vast pool of free software, what can easily happen is that
> > MP3,
> > MP4 etc. 'sneaks into' the product. Then someone downstream forgets that
> > it's
> > there, or it's very hard to remove, and falls into the trap.
>
> Yes I did follow the Openmoko Mp3 patent issues a long while back.
>
>  I just wanted to ask you if things are ok re MP3 patents in the following
> scenario
>
> 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?

That will depend on your local patent laws and, perhaps more importantly, 
whether you can afford to prove you're right. You'll have to ask a local 
patent lawyer about that. I doubt anyone on this list is qualified to give you 
an answer, so don't rely on anything you see here.




More information about the support mailing list