any lawsuits involving use of FLAC in audio software Options

[FasterThanEver]

In another forum, someone asserted that companies like Microsoft and Apple avoid adding supports for formats like FLAC because of fear of Intellectual property lawsuits. He used the example of MP3 where Microsoft had been sued. I think that there were patents involved with the development of MP3 and don't think that the example of MP3 applies to FLAC.

I've never heard of any legal problems involving use of Flac. I understand the intent of the developer but I'm interested in whether some other party has asserted claims based on patents that might cover some aspect of algorithms used in FLAC coding and decoding.

Bill

[DonP]

In another forum, someone asserted that companies like Microsoft and Apple avoid adding supports for formats like FLAC because of fear of Intellectual property lawsuits. He used the example of MP3 where Microsoft had been sued. I think that there were patents involved with the development of MP3 and don't think that the example of MP3 applies to FLAC.

Maybe a coincidence that Microsoft and Apple both have their own formats that they'd rather you use.

[krafty]

Fear of intellectual property lawsuits? That would be the greatest joke ever.
It's obvious that they don't support FLAC because they want to promote their own breed of lossless codecs in their products and software.
Not to mention that if FLAC support was added, the majority of people would prefer FLAC as it is kind of ubiquitous and full-featured.

This post has been edited by krafty: May 11 2011, 21:23

[Porcus]

In another forum, someone asserted that companies like Microsoft and Apple avoid adding supports for formats like FLAC because of fear of Intellectual property lawsuits.

Point him at http://flac.sourceforge.net/license.html .

[pdq]

In another forum, someone asserted that companies like Microsoft and Apple avoid adding supports for formats like FLAC because of fear of Intellectual property lawsuits.

Point him at http://flac.sourceforge.net/license.html .

"Neither the FLAC nor Ogg FLAC formats nor any of the implemented encoding/decoding methods are covered by any known patent."

This does not, however, guarantee that one cannot be sued for using it.

[falco98]

"Neither the FLAC nor Ogg FLAC formats nor any of the implemented encoding/decoding methods are covered by any known patent."

This does not, however, guarantee that one cannot be sued for using it.

How about if you had included this paragraph?

The FLAC and Ogg FLAC formats themselves, and their specifications, are fully open to the public to be used for any purpose (the FLAC project reserves the right to set the FLAC specification and certify compliance). They are free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that commercial developers may independently write FLAC or Ogg FLAC software which is compatible with the specifications for no charge and without restrictions of any kind. There are no licensing fees or royalties of any kind for use of the formats or their specifications, or for distributing, selling, or streaming media in the FLAC or Ogg FLAC formats.

[Sebastian Mares]

The paragraph you posted is related to royalties for FLAC itself. Like if I write my own codec, I could charge everybody for using it. This has nothing to do with patents.

[falco98]

The paragraph you posted is related to royalties for FLAC itself. Like if I write my own codec, I could charge everybody for using it. This has nothing to do with patents.

Yes, quite clearly the patents thing was covered by the prior post. Exactly what more are people wanting, here?

[Porcus]

pdq still has a valid point in that you can be sued, and that even patent trolling which later is totally dismissed, can while the process is running, be an obstacle for a technology nevertheless.

Remember SCO who tried to charge Linux users for snatching «their» intellectual property at the same time as SCO themselves were distributing Linux under the GPL? Lawyers paid by Microsoft ...

[falco98]

pdq still has a valid point in that you can be sued, and that even patent trolling which later is totally dismissed, can while the process is running, be an obstacle for a technology nevertheless.

Remember SCO who tried to charge Linux users for snatching «their» intellectual property at the same time as SCO themselves were distributing Linux under the GPL? Lawyers paid by Microsoft ...

Fair enough, I guess I was angling more towards any *rational* reason that they could be sued - but in this country of course anyone with enough money can sue someone else for anything valid or not. So point taken. I still don't think this should prevent companies from incorporating FLAC support though - and it would be interesting if someone could provide some evidence either way as to whether this has factored into FLAC support.

[saratoga]

it would be interesting if someone could provide some evidence either way as to whether this has factored into FLAC support.

Since I think few if any lossless formats come with patent indemnification, probably not. Most of these lossless formats are pretty similar in terms of algorithm, so I doubt one is much safer/riskier then another.