How about the license for LPC10 algorithm?
Kevin
I want to use the LPC10 algorithm in my products. Now I'm not clear
about the license for this algorithm. Do I need to pay the license fee
and pay to who?
Please give me some information about it.
Thanks a lot.
James Salsman
> about the license for this algorithm. Do I need to pay the license fee
> and pay to who?
No, it's free.
The U.S. DoD's Federal-Standard-1015/NATO-STANAG-4198 based 2400 bps
linear prediction coder (LPC-10) was republished as a Federal
Information Processing Standards Publication 137 (FIPS Pub 137).
It is described in:
Thomas E. Tremain, "The Government Standard Linear Predictive Coding
Algorithm: LPC-10," Speech Technology Magazine, April 1982, p. 40-49.
-- http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~jaf/lpc/FAQ
Cheers,
James
--
www.readsay.com - maker of the ReadSay PROnounce English literacy system
400 MHz PDA included: $499 -- http://www.readsay.com/PROnounce.html
ying li
> > I want to use the LPC10 algorithm in my products. Now I'm not clear
> > about the license for this algorithm. Do I need to pay the license fee
> > and pay to who?
>
> No, it's free.
>
> The U.S. DoD's Federal-Standard-1015/NATO-STANAG-4198 based 2400 bps
> linear prediction coder (LPC-10) was republished as a Federal
> Information Processing Standards Publication 137 (FIPS Pub 137).
> It is described in:
>
> Thomas E. Tremain, "The Government Standard Linear Predictive Coding
> Algorithm: LPC-10," Speech Technology Magazine, April 1982, p. 40-49.
>
> -- http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~jaf/lpc/FAQ
>
> Cheers,
> James
It is not complete true. Actually, LPC-10 is free only used for the
application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent/Bell Lab and
so on.
Kathy
+
James Salsman
>... Actually, LPC-10 is free only used for the
> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
Sincerely,
John Openshaw
reads...@nospam.net> writes
>ying li wrote:
>>... Actually, LPC-10 is free only used for the
>> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
>> licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent....
>
>No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
>1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
>by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
Not necessarily true as the patent holders can get an extension - best
get legal advice from the qualified ones.
--
John Openshaw
James Salsman
>>> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
>>> licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent....
>>
>> No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
>> 1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
>> by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
>
> Not necessarily true as the patent holders can get an extension - best
> get legal advice from the qualified ones.
Please read: http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~gray/ucsb.pdf
LPC10 at 2.4kbps was in use on SATNET in 1979. It wasn't developed
by Lucent.
I wish there was a valid patent on it so that then maybe people would
stop using it.
John Openshaw
dsay...@nospam.net> writes
>>>> ... Actually, LPC-10 is free only used for the
>>>> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
>>>> licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent....
>>>
>>> No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
>>> 1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
>>> by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
>>
>> Not necessarily true as the patent holders can get an extension - best
>> get legal advice from the qualified ones.
>
>Please read: http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~gray/ucsb.pdf
>
>LPC10 at 2.4kbps was in use on SATNET in 1979. It wasn't developed
>by Lucent.
Patents are odd things, can have non-obvious scope and can be
transferred - my point is unless you are qualified and 100% sure that
there is no valid patent its unfair to claim that it is the case.
>I wish there was a valid patent on it so that then maybe people would
>stop using it.
?
--
John Openshaw
James Salsman
>>>>> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
>>>>> licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent....
>>>>
>>>> No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
>>>> 1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
>>>> by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily true as the patent holders can get an extension - best
>>> get legal advice from the qualified ones.
>>
>> Please read: http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~gray/ucsb.pdf
>>
>> LPC10 at 2.4kbps was in use on SATNET in 1979. It wasn't developed
>> by Lucent.
>
> Patents are odd things, can have non-obvious scope and can be
> transferred - my point is unless you are qualified
What kind of qualifications do you think it takes to determine
whether LPC-10 is encumbered by a patent? A degree in law?
A top-secret clearance and access to dusty Pentagon file cabinets?
I resent the implication that I am unqualified to determine the
patent status of a piece-of-trash federal standard vocodec from
the 1970s. However, I am not a lawyer, and this is not advice.
> and 100% sure that there is no valid patent
I don't have any evidence that there is any kind of a patent, valid or
not, covering LPC-10. Do you? I have plenty of evidence that LPC-10
was collaboratively developed by people communicating through public
academic media, and described in public long before it could be covered
by a valid patent. I've looked at dozens of LPC patents, their dates,
and I've never seen one getting an extension anywhere near the kind of
time it would take for a hypothetical patent on LPC-10 to still be
valid. LPC-10 isn't a pharmaceutical. Plus, back then, patents lasted
17 years, not 20. I see no backlog in the issuance of LPC patents in
general that would suggest the patent office wasn't processing LPC
applications significantly less promptly in some cases than others.
> its unfair to claim that it is the case.
Unfair to whom? If someone takes my word for something without getting
a second opinion, and they later get sued because of it, is that my
fault? I can't be 100% sure my sources are all reliable, but this just
seems like a cut-and-dried issue. It seems absurd to suggest that a
old, bad, longstanding federal standard without any hint of licensing
requirements would still be encumbered.
Let's go back to the hypothesis that only U.S. and NATO countries can
make use of LPC-10 without a license. Does anyone have any evidence of
this at all? I can't find any.
>> I wish there was a valid patent on it so that then maybe people would
>> stop using it.
>
> ?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my opposition to nonstationary vocodecs,
which spans dozens of posts over more than a decade on this newsgroup:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=AJR.94Mar19103349%40dsl.eng.cam.ac.uk
I suppose someone has confused LPC-10, a federal standard intended to
be unencumbered by licensing restrictions even for foreign
manufacturers, with the competing superior and encumbered multi-band
excitation coders which are common today in cellular telephones (but
are still nonstationary and thus unsuitable for feature extraction.)
See the section "Case 2 (1993) - Voice Coder for Telecommunications" in
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-5298-191116/unrestricted/cases2.pdf
John Openshaw
adsa...@nospam.net> writes
>>>>>> ... Actually, LPC-10 is free only used for the
>>>>>> application for US Government/NATO. Other applications need to get
>>>>>> licenses from the LPC patent holders, for example Lucent....
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the publication date of the algorithm's essential ideas was
>>>>> 1982. Any patent that could have been valid would have expired
>>>>> by now. What patent number do you think covered LPC-10?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily true as the patent holders can get an extension - best
>>>> get legal advice from the qualified ones.
>>>
>>> Please read: http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~gray/ucsb.pdf
>>>
>>> LPC10 at 2.4kbps was in use on SATNET in 1979. It wasn't developed
>>> by Lucent.
>>
>> Patents are odd things, can have non-obvious scope and can be
>> transferred - my point is unless you are qualified
>
>What kind of qualifications do you think it takes to determine
>whether LPC-10 is encumbered by a patent? A degree in law?
Err, yes - coupled with being an active patent lawyer!
>I resent the implication that I am unqualified to determine the
>patent status of a piece-of-trash federal standard vocodec from
>the 1970s. However, I am not a lawyer, and this is not advice.
Resenting the implication and it being valid are separate issues. By
your own admission, you are unqualified!
>> and 100% sure that there is no valid patent
>
>I don't have any evidence that there is any kind of a patent, valid or
>not, covering LPC-10. Do you? I have plenty of evidence that LPC-10
>was collaboratively developed by people communicating through public
>academic media, and described in public long before it could be covered
>by a valid patent. I've looked at dozens of LPC patents, their dates,
>and I've never seen one getting an extension anywhere near the kind of
>time it would take for a hypothetical patent on LPC-10 to still be
>valid. LPC-10 isn't a pharmaceutical. Plus, back then, patents lasted
>17 years, not 20. I see no backlog in the issuance of LPC patents in
>general that would suggest the patent office wasn't processing LPC
>applications significantly less promptly in some cases than others.
>
>> its unfair to claim that it is the case.
>
>Unfair to whom? If someone takes my word for something without getting
>a second opinion, and they later get sued because of it, is that my
>fault?
If you present yourself as an expert, whereas in reality you're having a
sort-of educated guess as a proxy man-in-pub, yes you are at some fault.
>I can't be 100% sure my sources are all reliable, but this just
>seems like a cut-and-dried issue.
Someone said there is an IP issue. You claim that there isnt. Its
pointed out that patents and IP are non-obvious and you take that as a
slur on your competence, but you admit you are not legally qualified to
present an absolute opinion.
You cant be sure your sources are 100% reliable, but at the same time
this is cut and dried? Well - which is it?
>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my opposition to nonstationary vocodecs,
>which spans dozens of posts over more than a decade on this newsgroup:
Hmmm, so about one post every 6 months - didnt you used to post that
meme stuff about AI learning - that was quite entertaining!
--
John Openshaw
James Salsman
> If you present yourself as an expert,
Expressing an unqualified opinion and presenting oneself as an expert
are two different things. I have claimed no qualifications, even if
I do resent the silliness of suggesting that anyone even vaguely
familiar with the history of LPC-10 would need a law degree to realize
that it's unencumbered.
> whereas in reality you're having a sort-of educated guess as a proxy
> man-in-pub, yes you are at some fault.
Under what theory of liability, and what are your own qualifications
in suggesting that it could apply to me?
> Someone said there is an IP issue. You claim that there isnt. Its
> pointed out that patents and IP are non-obvious and you take that as a
> slur on your competence, but you admit you are not legally qualified to
> present an absolute opinion.
I am legally qualified to present an opinion, absolute or relative.
I am only unqualified to give legal advice. Saying, "the LPC-10
algorithm is in the public domain," is a far cry from saying, "as
your attorney, I advise you to use LPC-10 in all your telephony
projects." Even someone with a law degree would be unqualified to
say that, because it's just plain bad advice.
> You cant be sure your sources are 100% reliable, but at the same time
> this is cut and dried? Well - which is it?
You answer my question about whether you have any evidence that LPC-10
is encumbered, and then I'll tell you.
>... didnt you used to post that meme stuff about AI learning
You think I'm the Mentifex guy? No, the closest I ever got to FORTH
was Postscript, and its been half a decade since the last time I can
remember drawing ASCII art block diagrams.
VNG
Why using obsolete vocoder such as LPC10, when there is a new one which
is the state of the art?
Have you heard of MELPe (Enhanced MELP) operating at 2400 and 1200 bps
and producing a much better quality?
See for yourself, there's also a demo at:
www.MELPe.com
Cheers,
VNG
VNG
thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings
of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the
concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are
antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior
because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or
inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or
blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
"inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been
brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith
in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but
he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant
behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings
of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as
individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the
leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization
or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may of
James Salsman
Moscow are far more alike than the life any one of them is like that
of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities
are the result of a common technology. . ." L. Sprague de Camp, "The
Ancient Engineers," Ballentine edition, page 17.
The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does
have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to
survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.
19. (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might
create a lot of terrorists.
20. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences
of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered.
Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the
elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of
carcinogens into the environment.
21. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion
that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we will
il
ying li
certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the
"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,
and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever
on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and
their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly
to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them
rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or
whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to
remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision
and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild).
In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that
neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as
we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through
genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular
point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and
other organisms have been utterly transformed.
178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is
creating for human begins a new physical and social environment
radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural
selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological. If
man is
James Salsman
actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such
a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over
its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It
also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in
America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African
Americans by placing back individuals in the technological
power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials,
scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are
helping to absorb the African American subculture into the
technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only
those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the
conflicts of power--elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.
192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant
advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the
revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer
more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral
significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system,
and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no
importance.
193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily
involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not
involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution.
Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]
194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political
power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system
is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure
in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some "green
John Openshaw
ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed
toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their
employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any
company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to
act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible
for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in
industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only
limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,
he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system
and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a
new technology, the small-business person often has to use that
technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
121. A further reason why industrial society
John Openshaw
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th
century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended
families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as
these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by
choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles,
that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to
have developed problems as a result.
56.Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and
deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach
of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he
arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in
an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper
change that that which typically occurs in the life of a modern
individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological
problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and
self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense
(largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th
century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he
created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a
piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his
own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of
hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity
than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a
member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered
community. One may well question whether the creation of this
community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the
pioneer's need for the p
James Salsman
a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as
well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is
Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of the
Earth and its living things that are independent of human management
and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we
include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the
functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation
by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God
(depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several
reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the
opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power
of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful;
certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical
environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and
opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to
set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature
takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long
before any human society, and for countless centuries many different
kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an
excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did
the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To
relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special
kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial
society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society
ha
stra...@gmail.com
Http://www.melpe.org
Incluing implementations, software, hardware and solutions