MP3 'capable' [was: Meida player.]

[Joachim Ott]

2009/9/10 Al Johnson <openmoko at mazikeen.demon.co.uk>:
> 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.