"Only codecs developed from the ground up by free software groups like Xiph are completely patents free. Codecs which were closed and opened later like Theora (VP3) and VP8 have patents which were assigned to them originally, but which were "liberated" as open - i.e. granted royalty free usage. It's as if they don't exist for you for all practical purposes. Who told you that Dirac has no patents attached to it? It has them, and they are royalty free as in VP8 case:"

This is rubbish, even software developed in a clean room from the ground up can be found infringing on third party software patents regardless of who or how it is implemented.

The only answer is to abolish software patents entirely, once and for all, there is no half way house, no middle ground, they are just plain wrong.

You don't create a different printing press by making it print a different book.

You don't create a different computer by making it run a different program.

rgds

Another reason why software patent will be *never* allowed in EU (no matter of lobbyist's armies), not to mention Asia. Let US sink in software stagnancy, due to own stupidity - unless they finally decide abandon such ridiculous idea, as soft patenting.

/Estel

Reading comprehension issues? I wrote about patents filed by the creators of the codec, not about whether the codec infringes something or not. I.e. free software projects usually don't file such patents, but even they can do it for defensive purposes, and I'm OK with that, if such defensive nature is formalized and can't become offensive in any case.

Surely, I support the abolition of patents on software and algorithms. But projects operate in current reality where they exist (in some countries), so making defensive patent pool is acceptable, even RedHat does that.

You stated "Only codecs developed from the ground up by free software groups like Xiph are completely patents free"

I am fairly sure you would not be able to file a defensive software patent if a third party already has filed patents covering the same method since there would be prior art invalidating your newer patent application.

Given the number of software patents and their broad coverage, it is fairly unlikely that any method of producing a codec has not already been fully covered by issued software patents.

rgds

In reply to Wikiwide who wrote:

Meaning the patents filed by the creators. So I answered about the same subject - please pay attention to the discussion when replying, to save everyone's time. And I agree - there is no such thing as "completely patents free 100% guaranteed". Since you never know what kind of patent troll can surface up tomorrow attacking something. Literally no one is protected against it 100%. However for all practical purposes "no known patents" is good enough. That's how everything operates anyway.

You sound very sure in yourself. Pray you won't turn out to be wrong... The lobbyist have clients with very, very deep pockets.