Who uses MP3 on an ipod? I'm using a 3G and back then it wasn't even the standard compression. There are absolutely zero mp3 files in my ipod or itunes. They are Apple's AAC compression, which is immensely better. What's with all the mp3 stuff? I thought it was essentially dead. iTunes doesn't deliver mp3 files. I'd have to say Apple's use of Mp3 is pretty miniscule.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Alcatel-Lucent Awarded $1.5 Billion from Microsoft over MP3 Patents
- Thread starter Teh Don Ditty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who uses MP3 on an ipod? I'm using a 3G and back then it wasn't even the standard compression. There are absolutely zero mp3 files in my ipod or itunes. They are Apple's AAC compression, which is immensely better. What's with all the mp3 stuff? I thought it was essentially dead. iTunes doesn't deliver mp3 files. I'd have to say Apple's use of Mp3 is pretty miniscule.
Hopefully m4a format is different from MP3? If so, all my music is m4a not MP3 so maybe that's one iPod less for Apple to worry about
Seriously though, what about all the money paid to Fraunhofer/Thomson over the years? I hope if this case has merit then at least that money should be garnished before going after MS & Apple etc.
p.s.They sold that many Zunes?
Could this explain the price of Vista?
From what I've heard, it's not from the quality of the product...
EDIT: Blizzard Entertainment is on the list too!
NOT MY WoW Connection!!
I don't how much money your campany pulls in that is a chunk. I bet Microsoft didn't like that too much.
I use MP3 EXCLUSIVELY, and will continue to use it until some other format overtakes it. Yes, AAC is a better technology. Yes, AAC is more "open," however it is "the standard" that nearly every device, pc, etc. supports. You *cannot* say that about AAC no matter how good it is. Nearly every other codec is technically "better than mp3" but so few devices support any other format.
w00master
Like, most of the people who steal their music from the network rather than compensating the artists for their work....
I beg to differ. All my music is in MP3 format and it's everything I've ever purchased (ripped from my own CD collection).
Please, are you a shill for the RIAA? Nice that you like to GENERALIZE.
MP3 DOES NOT equal PIRACY. It's not 2001 anymore.
w00master
Every song I have (and my collection is over 150gb) is mp3. About a third are CD's that I own, and the other 2/3s are live sets I've downloaded or recorded myself. And maybe 200MB of my own music...
Every song I have (and my collection is over 150gb) is mp3. About a third are CD's that I own, and the other 2/3s are live sets I've downloaded or recorded myself. And maybe 200MB of my own music...
So, you *stole* music from yourself? Obviously, it *must* be stolen because it's in MP3 format.
*GASP!*
So... are you going to sue yourself?
Sad that I've actually had it argued to me that what you desccribe is, indeed, a copyright violation...
That viewpoint is brain dead. You develop wavelet research to do this and suddenly you're supposed to let others pilfer your work?
I'd suggest Microsoft develop their own implementations of MP3 and put it into their products.
I know. It's my music, I bought it and I'll do what I friggin please with it.
The RIAA and their likes can kiss my.... well you know what!
Probably just a function of the legal team not knowing there would BE a "Zune" when the suit was filed.
I'm sure these jokers will remedy that when this cluster-F of a decision puts Apple and the iPod at the defendant's table.
Microsoft accuses Alcatel-Lucent of back dating Patent.
http://www.eagletribune.com/pubiz/local_story_050094603?keyword=secondarystory
Excerpts:
AT&T Corp. and Fraunhofer agreed in 1989 to develop MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 technology, now called MP3. Scientists from AT&T's Bell Labs collaborated with Fraunhofer before AT&T spun off the unit in 1996. Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies Inc., which Alcatel SA acquired last year.
Microsoft accuses Lucent of deceiving the U.S. Patent & Trademark office by having one of the patents reissued and backdated to 1988, removing it from the scope of the 1989 deal with Fraunhofer.
----
Somehow Microsoft was not able to prove any wrong doing with the US Patent Office.
http://www.eagletribune.com/pubiz/local_story_050094603?keyword=secondarystory
Excerpts:
AT&T Corp. and Fraunhofer agreed in 1989 to develop MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 technology, now called MP3. Scientists from AT&T's Bell Labs collaborated with Fraunhofer before AT&T spun off the unit in 1996. Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies Inc., which Alcatel SA acquired last year.
Microsoft accuses Lucent of deceiving the U.S. Patent & Trademark office by having one of the patents reissued and backdated to 1988, removing it from the scope of the 1989 deal with Fraunhofer.
----
Somehow Microsoft was not able to prove any wrong doing with the US Patent Office.
I'm having mixed feelings about this. First of all, in on itself, the ruling is a bad thing. Yes, Microsoft is evil, but it's still a bad thing. But then again, rulings like this might be what it takes for everyone to see that software-patents are a bad thing.
I find it funny that some petty souls can actually gloat about this just because it's Microsoft. There's so many others that Lucent is looking to bite in the ass, it's just that MS is presently the largest target with the deepest pockets.
I've heard the bit I've highlighted above a few times in this thread now - with both positive and negative connotations. I'm looking about the web for arguments/opinions/disscussions for and against; but in the meantime would anyone who has made mention of this like to add some depth to the comment(s)?
I'm sure I "get" the argument for patents - One should gets benjamins for one's hard work, innovation, yada yada yada... but what exactly do you see as the counter position?
It cannot be that one should NOT be rewarded for hard work and innovation. Or can it? It just seems that's too problematic and would ultimately lead to no innovation/advance.
Like I've said, I've turned up a few hits on these internets re: this and my budddy here next to me is fairly opinionated as well, but what say you?
Oh well... time for chow. surprise me when I get back.
He said that most people who download songs illegally use MP3. He DID NOT say that anyone who uses MP3 is downloading illegally. BIG difference!Please, are you a shill for the RIAA? Nice that you like to GENERALIZE.
MP3 DOES NOT equal PIRACY. It's not 2001 anymore.
w00master
Frauenhofer is not a company but a society of research institutes. There are a couple of research institutes troughout germany belonging to the Frauenhofer Society.
You can see the history of mp3 development here (german):
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/fhg/iis/bf/amm/mp3history/index.jsp
Frauenhofer didn't help to develop the mp3 compression, they invented it. Alcatel/Lucent later joined the development and made several extensions - which they might use in their file against MS but the whole thing could be backfiring imho.
The site of the Frauenhofer Gesellschaft (english): http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/EN/index.jsp
You can see the history of mp3 development here (german):
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/fhg/iis/bf/amm/mp3history/index.jsp
Frauenhofer didn't help to develop the mp3 compression, they invented it. Alcatel/Lucent later joined the development and made several extensions - which they might use in their file against MS but the whole thing could be backfiring imho.
The site of the Frauenhofer Gesellschaft (english): http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/EN/index.jsp
I think the best description of the problem was made by the CEO of MySQL. He said (not a direct quote, but still):
Software is a collection of algorithms that is already protected by copyright. Copyright has worked very very well for software for decades and there's no reason to change it. In many ways software is very similar to literature, you write code to express your ideas. In literature you write words to express your ideas. And the code and the words are protected by copyright. If we extend patents to software, it would be similar if someone got a patent on the idea of killing someone with a knife in a book, and then suing people who write a book where someone is killed with a knife for patent-infringment.
Bill Gates managed to gather billions of dollars WITHOUT software-patents. Larry Ellison did the same WITHOUT software-patents. The idea that "Without patents, you wouldn't get rewarded for your hard work/innovation" is 100% bogus. People have been earning vast sums of money from software without patents for decades! And now we have bunch of megacorporations and multi-billionares telling us that "we need patents so we could earn money and continue to innovate". They have already earned huge sums of money and we have had lots of progress in the field of software without one shred of patents. Where is the need for patents here? We have had copyrights right from the start, and they have worked just fine.
Suppose that we had had software-patents right from the start. What if Xerox had patented the GUI? Anyone writing a GUI would get sued for patent-infringment. How about if someone patented a word-processor? A spreadsheet? A web-browser? Would we REALLY be better off? I doubt it.
What did Bill Gates say about software-patents back in 1991?
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
Think about it. Think about it long and hard. And looking at the 1.5 billion dollars, it seems BIll Gates was right. Only difference is that Microsoft is not a startup.
Yeah. That's pretty much what I'm seeing from various sources and the idea of software being more similar to literature (and copyrights applying thereto) than to patent-able objects/innovations makes basic sense to me.
My buddy threw out the "stifle innovation" argument in our discussion hereand I saw someone use the $ for hard work justification above and just wanted someone to expound on that sside of the argument. I guess I agree with you tentatively but intuitively and was hoping for someone to vehemently argue the other side... anyone?
HA! Orange drink in my MRE!!! Today is a good day.
Firstly let be clear - the article say's the judge has awarded THEN that m$ has appealed...that appeal is not done and dusted yet...the award is a starting point...after all what to judges know about technology...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18fUkRuKXYc
...and that's not to mention the fact that this case is like something from the movie 'paycheck'...going back in time and altering patent records - sheesh kebab!!that's not cricket...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18fUkRuKXYc
...and that's not to mention the fact that this case is like something from the movie 'paycheck'...going back in time and altering patent records - sheesh kebab!!that's not cricket...