Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Buffering idea
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 15:31:15 EEST
>If the patent was only submitted in '97 you this is no problem. SLab can
>prove a prior implementation or audio caching, the software is in the
>public domain. All you need to do is take a few lines out of the SLab
>disk IO daemon, include it with comments to the effect of where it came,
>and use it without recourse. You only need to use the most basic
>elements
>of the code, or indicate you are using the same generic algorithm.
>
>I do not even see the need to finances for eventual litigation. This is
>a pretty strong defense, and to litigate against one or more private
>individuals supplying GPL software is a no-win situation.
>
>Put it this way, SLab has cached megabytes of audio data since way
>before this patent was submitted. It has prior implementation.
don't be too sure of this.
if you read the patent carefully, which is wise since all patents are
written carefully, i think you will find that it doesn't cover general
i/o caching, which would clearly be invalidated by operating systems
code let alone other audio software. it covers a very specific case of
loading audio sample data *in preparation for triggered playback*. the
patent also explains the motivations for the design, and SLab clearly
doesn't overlap in any way with these motivations - its neither
intended to be nor useful as a triggered pitch-dependent sample
playback engine. i know, and you know, that the code involved in what
SLab does do, and what gigasampler does, is conceptually
equivalent. but thus far, the USPTO doesn't seem moved by this line of
thinking.
what you have to remember is that until gigasampler emerged, nobody,
well none of the commercial players at the very least, were doing
this. it really was innovative. the problem was, it was only
innovative as a cross-domain thing - read-ahead caching wasn't
innovative at all.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 19 2002 - 15:39:42 EEST