I need dvd softwear

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, and better than anything available in China.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
ISO/IEC 13818 is an open standard. In EU any open standard must be royalty fee.

That's particularly odd because Denmark themselves define Open Standards as those having at most low costs, which is far different from saying it's royalty free...

MPEG2 is an open standard in the sense that it is an ISO standard. Open standard does not mean it is royalty free.

Can you even read? What you linked doesn't support you at all. From your own link:

For example, the standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the ITU, ISO, and IEC are ordinarily considered open, but may require patent licensing fees for implementation.

Open standards which can be implemented by anyone, without royalties or other restrictions, are sometimes referred to as open formats.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem isn't decoding CSS, it's paying the licensing fees for the MPEG2 decoding software (which involves its patents), not copy protection.

Unless Denmark is a third world country (which very well may be the case!), it's still illegal in that country to use patented, licensed technology without acquiring a license.

There are no software/math patents in Europe; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents . This is not because we are a 3rd world country, but because we fought and won when the plutocrats tried to get their law through the EU parliament.

[Asher]

It's monumental stupidity on the same scale as the US Patent Office's monumental stupidity of giving patents for trivial things.

The right places is in the middle, but Europeans and Americans both vie for the title of the dumbest demographic in the world.

It appears you're wrong anyway:

In Europe, the EPO (and other national patent offices) has been issuing many software patents since the 1980s, although (or since) Article 52 of the European Patent Convention excludes "programs for computers" (Art. 52(2)) but only to the extent it relates to activities "as such" (Art. 52(3)). See Software patents under the European Patent Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention

Even though the European Patent Convention and its Article 52 excludes the patentability of programs for computers as such and despite the fact that the European Patent Organisation (EPO) subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny [1] when compared to their American counterpart, that does not mean that all inventions including some software are de jure not patentable.

[Asher]

And for my European friends, I must point out to you that software != mathematical patents.

It is my understanding that there are several underlying patents of MPEG2 that are only available when royalties are paid via MPEG2 licensing fees. This is similar to the GIF format and its LZW algorithm, where the LZW algorithm was patented.

[snoopy369]

There's some significant question to the full validity of the DVD patent pool, particularly with which patent licenses actually required to make a DVD or play it (iirc there are seven basic patents for the basic license, plus more for hardware producers). There's also some question as to how valid (ie, fair/nondiscrimanatory) their pricing structure is.

The pricing structure, however, is VERY cheap for decoders - $1 or 4% of net selling price (whichever is higher). Thus, there's no reason WMP couldn't include it, or at the very least couldn't offer it for a $1 plugin.

Heck, perhaps they should set up a method for you to pay $1 and then legally use a freeware program

[Thue]

Since the convention says that software patents are not patentable, I guess they will be thrown out in court if they tried to use it.

And since the convention says that software is not patentable, you should not assume that all software patents in the US have an equivalent in the EU.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

That's particularly odd because Denmark themselves define Open Standards as those having at most low costs, which is far different from saying it's royalty free...

MPEG2 is an open standard in the sense that it is an ISO standard. Open standard does not mean it is royalty free.

Can you even read? What you linked doesn't support you at all. From your own link:

Open standard, as is generally used (and I don't give a frick what wiki says about that) does imply royalty free. Open standard directly means open to use by others. It does not necessarily mean that it's GPL open, or modifiable, etc; PDF is (now) an open format (can be freely written/read, iirc) but isn't modifiable.

MPEG-2 is a Standard, but not an Open Standard.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Thue
Since the convention says that software patents are not patentable, I guess they will be thrown out in court if they tried to use it.

And since the convention says that software is not patentable, you should not assume that all software patents in the US have an equivalent in the EU.

I don't know that software patent applies to the DVD patents. They are considered to be somewhat hardware, and are generally bundled with some hardware patents, due to the fact that in part they are the reading of the disc itself, which would be hardware.

Also, they're not claiming at any point to patent the software itself, but the method of transferring video from video-form (optical?) to digital bits and back again. That is indeed the main point of any patent - the methodology, not the actual implementation. Software is implementation (Win-DVD, ie); the particular method of converting video to digital bits and back again, though, is not software, but simply a method. There's no way this isn't patentable (as much as any given person may dislike patents).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Thue
Since the convention says that software patents are not patentable, I guess they will be thrown out in court if they tried to use it.

And since the convention says that software is not patentable, you should not assume that all software patents in the US have an equivalent in the EU.

You are having a very difficult time differentiating between software patents and algorithmic patents.

"Software patents" as the EU defined them are largely garbage. They very often just patent things as they are implemented specifically, which is more of a copyright issue IMO.

Patents on algorithms and the like as used in software are definitely very legal both in the EU and in North America. Such patents are the kinds used in MPEG2.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
PDF is (now) an open format (can be freely written/read, iirc) but isn't modifiable.

That's only partially true -- MS was taken for a ride by Adobe when PDF writing was built into Office 2007 betas.

[snoopy369]

I think the issue there is probably with profiting from it, yes?

[snoopy369]

Hmm, or was it MS trying to fudge with the PDF standard? That sounds MS-like

Indeed, i'd think that's their only possible route of argument, based on their current legal licenses...

Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification:

followed by some patent #s

[Asher]

I think it had more to do with anti-trust concerns than patent.

MS is going to offer it as a free download, but not ship it with Office.

[snoopy369]

Hmm, anti-trust concerns with MS? I have no idea where that would come from ... and actually nonsarcastically have no idea how that could affect MS's bundling of PDF capability with Office. If that's the line they're drawing, it just proves the silliness of the justice department.