Re: persuading mobile phone manufacturers to implement Vorbis support

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> Alexander van Loon schrieb:
>> Are they collaborating with Xiph.org, or are they doing this
>> independently?

It's more independent than it should be.  There is a separate list
([email protected]).

> I really hope that Xiph doesn't have anything to do with this.

Chris Montgomery (Xiph founder) has commented on it
(http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/05/playogg) and
doesn't seem to object.

 Trying to
> bring people to use Vorbis instead of MP3 by bashing on MP3, partly with
> invalid statements (you don't have to pay licensing fees for giving away
> MP3 files)

You do if you generate revenue through that distribution
(http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html).  But where does the FSF say
that?

> instead of promoting the advantages of Vorbis

Vorbis is probably technically better, but my understanding is that
Xiph's mission is specifically creating media formats that are not
patent-encumbered.

> What happened to Microsoft as someone showed up and claimed that
> Microsoft violates one of their patents by using MP3 technology can 
> just as well happen to someone using Vorbis

Maybe.  But if that does happen (if the claim can not be defeated), I
will move on to a new format, and I think the FSF will do the same.

> After all, Vorbis is "under the hood" not _that_ different from
> MP3 and many people seem to expect the MP3 patents to just cover the
> bitstream format and not the actual technologies being used.

How can a patent not be specific to the actual technologies being used?

Matthew Flaschen