Codecs and Software Patents - Part I - The 2026 Status Quo
Can we go back to basics?
We habitually add to Daily Links, typically under "Software Patents", reports about the EPO granting and sometimes invalidating (mea culpa!) software patents which relate to codecs. For the sake of simplicity, in this series we won't be speaking about video or audio codecs separately (the former multimedia formats are - for the most part - a superset of the latter).
We recently got told that codec selection had become a priority issue for Free software advocates after we had published 3 articles about GAFAM "edging out" Theora (Ogg) for no genuinely good reason. Of course they say "security" - by which they mean lack of momentum/inertia or "not enough" market share (to incentivise active maintenance/patching). A key person, Monty (not the one of MySQL or MariaDB fame), was 'acquired' by Red Hat, which then became IBM. They didn't prioritise free codecs - at IBM it would be unreasonable to expect such an objective. IBM's latest pair of CEOs would be considered awful by IBM insiders. Remember that IBM has always been a loud booster of software patents; heck, IBM uses those patents to shake down lots of companies.
This series will discuss the state of software patenting, what it means to patent codecs (the patents do not cover any particular code; as RMS has long explained, patents do not cover programs but concepts, which makes them a threat to any arbitrary new or existing program), and what we can do about it. Yes, more activism against software patents, not limited to exposing the forces at play, which include cocaine addicts - compromised officials at the EPO who serve Team UPC and the wider "litigation" 'industry'.
Nokia, which created and now occupies a kangaroo court headed by a software patents booster (I got SLAPP threats from them! How dare I criticise the illegality of the UPC?), is a very prominent culprit.
In part II, which will come soon, we shall take a glance at some "popular" (widely used because of GAFAM "network effect") codecs.
Compression for audio and video isn't mandatory; the other day (Sunday) I purchased 20+ CDs (for just 2 pounds) and they still work fine without intensive compression or highly complicated formats (it's well known that the folks who made MP3 deliberately added unnecessary bloat that increases file size just so that they could squeeze more software patents into it!).
It's frustrating to see how little (almost none) media coverage exists for these sorts of matters. Who stands to benefit? The "litigation" 'industry', the cartel, and its enforcers (licensing mafia). It is indirectly related to what we wrote about patents on live-patching. █
Image source: ZX Spectrum And Three Microdrives