Roger and Allison Kulp wrote:
> The past damage argument is completely bogus,I can see the case being thrown out in the future.As for paying future royalties,it seems to me,that websites could just get around it,by using a different format.Don't Real,and iTunes use something other than MP3 ? I stream a lot of stuff off the web,and about 60% of the sites do use Real or iTunes exclusively.As well as something called Icecast , for PC owners.Moreso than a year ago.Could they have known this was coming ?
> I agree,this is sad.If I recall,the development of MP3,goes back to 1987.Is this one of the very last new things Lucent/Bell ever developed ? That was 20 years ago.The term of patent is just about due to expire,and they want to grab whatever money they can,while they can.Or am I all wrong here ?
Lest we forget:
MP3 is Level 3 of the audio standard defined by the Motion Picture
Experts Group. Like its predecessors, it is a standard needed for
playback of some video files. In that sense, it has an existence outside
alternative compression schemes and one may assume a persistence (not to
say permanence) they do not share.
MP3 would not be preferred if one of the alternatives were as well
established. I believe it uses floating point, therefore 32 bits to
represent audio level. As a result, it starts with a 2:1 disadvantage
over other compressors which uniformly (in my experience) have only 16 bits.
Perhaps in the future, MPn will be superseded for general use, but for
now it carries on based on its de facto standardization and wide
[log in to unmask]