
MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired - symisc_devel
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/PatentList.aspx
======
herogreen
I wonder if this will affect the existence of the Raspberry Pi's binary blob ?
I remember Liz Upton saying "[MPEG2 licensing] is a reason we have to keep the
blob, unfortunately, or we’d be sued into a smoking hole in the ground by the
MPEG LA" on this page: [https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-birthday-present-
from-bro...](https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-birthday-present-from-
broadcom/)

Also does it mean that the Raspberry Fundation could provide the MPEG2
hardware decoder license key for free ? (currently:
[http://www.raspberrypi.com/mpeg-2-license-
key/](http://www.raspberrypi.com/mpeg-2-license-key/))

~~~
userbinator
I'm actually surprised that that hasn't been cracked yet --- or at least, a
quick search didn't find anything (do let me know otherwise!); as we all know
too well these days, Google isn't particularly neutral in terms of what search
results it wants to show anymore.

That said, the RPi being the closed system it is, it's not surprising that no
real hacker/cracker types would bother with it and the community remains
mainly docile. But given the publicity and popularity, it is a little
surprising.

~~~
mmozeiko
It is cracked. Here's a simple patch:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_pi/comments/5x7xbo/patch_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_pi/comments/5x7xbo/patch_for_mpeg2_vc1_license/)

~~~
reacweb
Do you mean that enabling the Pi's hardware decoding of MPEG-2 and VC-1 video
files without paying for a license key just requires to patch a single byte
with this command ?

cd /boot ; cp start.elf start.elf_backup && perl -pne
's/\x47\xE9362H\x3C\x18/\x47\xE9362H\x3C\x1F/g' < start.elf_backup > start.elf

~~~
q3k
Yes, it seems to patch a licensing function at 0xEC95FD4 [1] to always return
1, by patching the jump at 0xEC95FE2 (that should be only taken for the
always-allowed H263 codec) to always be taken, thus always allowing all
codecs.

[1] -
[https://q3k.org/u/8e3173aef341df726e4f38f30e58417239423250f3...](https://q3k.org/u/8e3173aef341df726e4f38f30e58417239423250f3e44f5b8b79acdc451d1553.png)

------
amelius
As an aside, MPEG-LA already moved on, forming other patent pools such as for
CRISPR (the gene editing technology).

See their website:
[http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx](http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx)

~~~
zanny
Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific
progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be
life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA
existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would
have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big
media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken IP law just as much as patent
trolls and the Eastern District of Texas getting parks built by global corps
are.

~~~
notyourwork
Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution
to the current (as you describe) broken system.

The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we
need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

~~~
amluto
Abolish it entirely.

I'm not really kidding. I think that evidence that patents are beneficial in
_any_ field is lacking.

Alternatively, a few major reforms would help. For example:

1\. Decrease patent terms to just a few years in most fields.

2\. Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Codec patents,
for example, should never have been valid.

3\. Eliminate submarine patents. Specifically, require patent holders to
notify infringers of their infringement in a timely manner. If you know or
should know that my specification, technology, or product is covered by your
patent, you must tell me what patent covers it and why. If you give me a list
of 700 patents that "might" cover it, you get some appropriate penalty. If you
fail to notify me, your patent no longer applies. If my infringing technology
is public _and_ you fail to publicly disclose your patent, you cannot enforce
your patent against anyone who infringes it using my technology or a
derivative thereof. By "should know", I mean that, if an attentive participant
in whatever market I'm in would have known of whatever details of my
technology infringe on your patent, then you "should know". Even if my
technology is still under development by a standards body.

#3 is a big deal. It means that owning and maintaining a patent is a bit
expensive. It means that, if you patent some incomprehensible detail that
might apply to future technologies, then you _must_ tell people that their
future technologies would infringe. This, by itself, would likely blow away
most codec patents. And AOM would be spared the expense of their patent
search. Simply publish AV1, wait the prescribed time, and AV1 is in the clear.

4\. Covenants not to sue and blanket licenses do not waive requirements under
#3. If an AOM member wants to give a blanket license of their whole portfolio
under defensive terms to users of AV1, they still need to disclose how AV1
infringes their patents or they can't use those patents defensively in the
future against AV1.

~~~
Solar19
I agree with some of this, and I think most software patents are garbage and
should not be legally permitted. But I'm stuck on codecs. Codecs are real, as
real as a bag of apples. And they're complicated, extremely specific (and
necessarily formally specified), and the result of a lot of work, sometimes
brilliant work.

If there's any software that has a chance of convincing me of patent
worthiness, it's probably codecs. Or at least the co(d) part. I'm muddled on
decoding because it seems like just figuring out how to read something should
be treated differently.

Is the term 20 years now? That's too long for any kind of software, even
codecs. I think an important principle that should influence the design of
patent law is the rough likelihood of the invention being made by others, or
qualitatively matched or exceeded by others, in various spans of time. (Of
course you have to model this assuming certain patent laws in place, as well
as no patent system at all, to really do it right.)

I despise patent predators, née trolls. But MPEG-LA isn't a good example for
me to work with because I think they're actual companies that do stuff – make
movies, Blu-ray players, TVs, etc. Some of them invented DVD and Blu-ray
probably, and evidently they invented MPEG-2, which I remember was viewed as
pretty slick and technically awesome when it came out (as were DVDs – I
remember VCRs and boy did they suck).

But 20 years? Yeah, no, this stuff should be 10 at most. I mean, would it hurt
us to have 10 year terms on codecs? Would we get lesser quality codecs? I
doubt it. HEVC is pretty amazing though, and it's clearly better than VP9, so
it looks like the proprietary stuff beats open source in this field (tiny
sample, yes, but there are many more examples available). Daala seemed to be
going nowhere. Mozilla didn't seem to be able to finish it. Now some companies
have teamed up for AV1, FOSS. I guess we'll see how good it is compared to
HEVC.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> HEVC is pretty amazing though, and it's clearly better than VP9, so it looks
> like the proprietary stuff beats open source in this field

This is just a restatement of the fact that codec patents exist.

When the state of the art advances because of improvements A to Z and A to W
are in the public domain, the proprietary codecs are still "better" because
they use A to W plus X, Y and Z which the open source codecs can't use because
of the patents.

The real question is whether the patented things would have been invented
without the patents. But the answer is probably yes, because the industry is
full of huge companies like Google and Netflix that directly benefit from
improving compression regardless of whether they can sell it to anyone else.

~~~
phkahler
AV1 is better than HEVC, is not patented, and was invented by companies
interested in conserving bandwidth out of need. So yes, things get invented
without patents.

~~~
ksec
>AV1 is better than HEVC, is not patented,

Being royalty free does not mean it is not patented.

~~~
cjalmeida
IIRC they did patent it to use as a threat against trolls, but promise never
to enforce it against fair users.

------
Crontab
This is a striking example of the need to shorten software patents; if we
really must have them at all.

~~~
pitaj
I'd rather the patent system be abolished than have the current patent system.
Same applies to Copyright.

The entire state of IP with the DMCA is just abysmal.

~~~
jacquesm
Be careful, you just might get what you wish for.

There definitely are major problems with the patent system and with copyright
but without them there would be other problems taking the place of the ones
that we have now.

Reform is the way to go, and reform - good reform anyway - is hard to get
right.

~~~
Zigurd
Is there any evidence that claims of innovation and creativity shutting down
without patent and copyright protection are, in fact, correct?

It seems like the purpose of these supposed protections is bent so far out of
share that the threat of "getting what you wish for" carries no weight.

Some media might shrink, but other media would grow to take it's place.
Neither patent now copyright "ownership" are natural rights like real property
ownership. In both philosophical and practical terms, dialing them down to
zero and then seeing how much we really need of them might be the best way to
find the optimal level.

~~~
jacquesm
Realize that for instance the GPL is based in ... tadaa ... copyright. And
there are a lot more examples like that.

If you start throwing rocks that large you have to be very careful about
unintended consequences and I'm not sure that I oversee the complexity of it
all to the point that I think that a 'let's get rid of it all' solution won't
create it's own particular kinds of problems and until we have feel for the
kind and magnitude of those problems being careful sounds like a good idea to
me.

For copyright I would propose slowly rolling back the length bit by bit until
we hit some kind of lower limit of practicality, for patents I would start
with abolishing software patents and replacing them with copyright, then
reduce the time limit on the remainder.

And there would have to be something a bit more drastic with respect to patent
trolls. It would be a reasonable start and it leaves the door open to eventual
total abolishment if that turns out to be feasible and desirable.

~~~
Zigurd
"If you start throwing rocks that large" is a terrible argument. It is the
same as arguments about keeping treatments for which there is no clinical
evidence just because money, reputation, and public morality might at stake in
varying degrees. If overreach in patent and copyright law is a drag on the
economy, which it very likely is, it's costing not just freedom, but it
amounts to the theft of wider prosperity for the benefit of the connected.
Just how much worse than that do you think what are here completely vague and
unspecified "unintended consequence" going to get? Be specific.

~~~
jacquesm
If you read the first sentence of the comment you replied to you will see that
I gave a very specific example.

Copyright and patent law are cornerstones of the economy, removing them
outright without due consideration of the consequences is simply
irresponsible.

A measured approach is advisable and doing this step-by-step would seem to be
the wiser course of action. If you feel that radically dropping both copyright
and patent law from one day to the next is the way to go then the onus is on
you to show that this will not have unintended consequences, not on me.

So: be specific.

------
SllX
An obsolete movie format, but a large amount of stored media exists in this
format so ultimately a win.

I would like to say something to the effect of there being just a tiny bit
less rent-seeking in the world today, but I'm sure by tomorrow the seeds will
be planted for millions more rent-seeking opportunities in the future.

~~~
anabis
Most digital TV broadcasts use MPEG-2, don't they?

~~~
muxator
DVB-T2 can use a variety of codecs.

From 2022 some European countries (Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia)
will pass their broadcasting system to DVB-T2 with H.265. Since January 2017
new TVs must support HEVC decoding.

Sadly, no AV1...

~~~
digi_owl
Do wonder how many will be left hanging high and dry with that transition.

~~~
colechristensen
In the US transition to digital transmission, nobody was left high and dry.
Perhaps mildly confused or inconvenienced by the need to get and setup a
government subsidized converter box. Doubtful this would go any different for
the above.

------
amyjess
For those wondering about MPEG-2's applications (compared to, e.g., MPEG-1 and
MPEG-4), it's the primary standard used for DVD-Video. Blu-ray makes some use
of MPEG-2, especially for the FBI warnings, but it's not too popular for the
actual features. It's also used in ATSC and DVB broadcast video, but I'm not
sure how popular it is compared to MPEG-4.

~~~
jcl
On reading the title, I was kind of hoping that it meant that all DVD player
creators would be free to stop imposing the artificial restrictions present on
many DVDs, like region locks, "unskippable" tracks, etc. But it looks like the
primary driver of those restrictions is actually the DVD Copy Control
Association, which I'm guessing holds a different set of IP and legal
agreements than MPEGLA does.

------
shmerl
Software patents shouldn't exist to begin with.

~~~
Retr0spectrum
I'm inclined to agree with you, but why?

~~~
whatshisface
Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge
instead of keeping everything as a trade secret. The idea was that they would
be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea
becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the
industry.

The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast
for the standard patent timeframe. Patents on software last longer than it
would take for a competitor to re-invent a trade secret: the result being that
they actually _slow down_ progression.

Ideally, we would adjust the term of every patent grant to match (or scale
with) the difficulty that a competitor would have to go through to re-invent
it. An approximation to that is having different patent durations for
different fields (shorter for software), and an approximation to _that_ is not
having software patents at all.

~~~
shawnz
> The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too
> fast for the standard patent timeframe.

Two thoughts:

\- Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise
the timeframe?

\- Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether
software, technological, or otherwise?

~~~
xenadu02
I favor the elimination of software patents but if we must have them then
things like MPEG are one of the few examples of software that probably should
qualify for patent protection. The idea that no one would research new video
codecs without patent protection is laughable - OS vendors, network operators,
et al are highly motivated to do so regardless of patents.

Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't likely to happen anytime
soon. Perhaps we should fight for some key changes like reducing the length of
software patents to something reasonable like 5 years.

I'd also like to see an "industry standards" exception to patents: Any
implementation of an industry standard created by an international standards
organization, working group, or similar authority is exempt from patent suits.
Royalties are fixed at some rate determined by the board (but no more than x%
of sales price or flat $y per item indexed to inflation) and go into a pool.
All patents in the pool are paid out of it. If you think your patent covers
something in the standard your only option is to submit your patent to the
pool, then you get a cut of the royalties corresponding to your contribution
(again as determined by an impartial board). Any fights over standards-related
patents would be confined to the board of experts, the royalty rate they
determine, and the allocation to each patent. The law would specify that
changes to royalties (even court-ordered) can only go into effect once per
year and only apply to products manufactured after that date.

Such a scheme would encourage everyone to contribute to open standards because
it would be the only way to ensure you can avoid patent lawsuits.

The one wrinkle is open-source software. I was trying to come up with a
workable system. All I landed on was no royalties required for open-source
software or end-users of such software, but if a manufacturer uses such
software in a product they sell then they would still be subject to royalties.

~~~
kelnos
This all just sounds too complicated. Why not just require that any technology
developed for an industry standard, ratified by an international standards
body, be given away, with patent rights disclaimed? I honestly don't see why
we should allow people to make money off of foundational things like this. It
creates perverse incentives.

As you point out, the lack of patent revenue here isn't going to hurt
innovation; I agree that it's laughable that the lack of patent protection
would stop or even slow down research here.

------
acd
I think software patents are unfair because companies claim monopoly or a
license fee. Patented software will be built on previous software work so they
are not unique pieces of inventions that stand on their own shoulders.

Shortly software patents wants sole right use while building on others
software work. Claiming fees for previous inventions.

Software should compete on skill of implementation and not legal departments.
Thus patents can also be viewed as anti competitive. Whereas big companies
with legal departments/ patent trolls can go after smaller competitors.

------
gryzzly
Does this mean that Electron issues with MPEG codecs are non-issues now? I
mean the discussion here
[https://github.com/electron/electron/issues/633](https://github.com/electron/electron/issues/633)
and
[https://github.com/electron/libchromiumcontent/issues/174](https://github.com/electron/libchromiumcontent/issues/174)

------
ksec
The page wasn't very clear, is it Mpeg-2 Video ( H.262 )? Or All Mpeg-2 ?
Because AAC is part of Mpeg-2 as well.

And just wondering, is it possible to extend H.262 to support 4K resolution,
different size Microblock, call it something else rather then Mpeg-2 without
hitting any patents infringement?

------
gbraad
The statement: "patents remain active in Philippines and Malaysia after that
date" worries me...

------
anonymfus
Except in Philippines and Malaysia?

------
upofadown
I looked at the page count on the PDF and thought; 25 pages of patent
references for MPEG2, that's insane. Then I looked at the list of patents for
HEVC(H.265)...

------
Paul-ish
Why doesn't the "original title" rule apply here?

