[Advocacy] persuading mobile phone manufacturers to implement Vorbis support

[Matthew Flaschen]

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen schrieb:
>> This is a detail that doesn't need to be in the press release.
>>
>>   
> As I asked in my first response to this discussion: Is it necessary at
> all to mention all the negative sides about MP3 (and even exaggerate a
> bit) to promote Vorbis?

Press releases always simplify things.  But I agree that your primary
correction (non-commercial distribution doesn't require royalties)
should be noted.

> seeing how e.g. Lucent-Alcatel's claims against Microsoft are accepted
> by several judicial instances, I find it hard to find anything unlikely
> anymore, even if the trial is still ongoing (isn't it?).

Yes, and supposedly "40% to 50% of patent verdicts are reversed on
appeal."
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117217665969616454.html?mod=googlewsj).
 Microsoft is not going to take this lying down; the same is true for
claims against Vorbis.

> I believe that several representatives from Xiph have clearly stated,
> that even if they didn't find any infringements during their research,
> doesn't mean that there aren't any.

That's true, of course.  No patent search is perfect.

> Nevertheless, at least a few court instances found it ok to let
Alcatel-Lucent charge them 1.52
> billion US$ for violating one of their patents.

Again, this is still being appealed.

>> 2. It is bad publicity to actually sue (as opposed to make vague
>> threats) the FOSS community this way.
>>   
> Sure, but if I had a paper in my back pocket with the option to give me
> 1.52 billion dollar, I think I might have considered accepting some bad
> publicity as a side effect for making use of that option.

Maybe, if you were sure the verdict and amount would hold up (unlikely).

>> 4. Knowingly waiting until Vorbis becomes popular before suing could be
>> a laches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29) violation
>>   
> Perhaps, but it worked for Thomson as they went against the Lame
> developers and it worked for Lucent-Alcatel now,

Not exactly.  It has always been known that MP3 was patented.

>>> MP3, seen as a file format, is as such not patented, but many
>>> distinct intermediate steps performed by the encoder and decoder are
>>> patented as specific technologies.
>>>     
>>
>> This is a valid distinction, but not meaningful in practice.
>>   
> Why not?

Because all MP3 decoders must infringe the patent.  So whether the
patent covers MP3 or MP3 decoders is not that important.

> What I am trying to say is that noone for sure can claim that Vorbis
> is not violating any patents and seeing how patent disputes currently
> seem to become more and more popular, I find it very doubtful to use 
> unclear patenting issues around MP3 as an argument to promote Vorbis.

Well, if it weren't for the patent issue I wouldn't bother with Vorbis.
 I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Matthew Flaschen