Ham radio at risk, Digital technology, copyrights

[n6yg]

Could proprietary Digital technology pose a risk to Ham radio.

With so many company's suing over intellectual property, copyrights and patents related to Digital Media and Software. I'm starting to wonder how this could affect Ham radio.

Just as an example Microsoft just lost a 1.5 billion dollar IP case involving MP3. "rightfully so this time" Its about time they got dinged hard. Anyhow doesn't some ham radio software incorporate MP3 ?? Maybe its time they shifted to an open source audio compression format such as ogg, not only is ogg open source its far better then Mp3. Furthermore moving to ogg would also protect software developers and Ham radio users from lawsuits related to MP3 IP licensing

Anyhow this got me wondering about The large ham radio company's and their intentions with digital technology in ham radio.

I am beginning to wonder about the dangers of ham radio going digital ie. Yaesu /Wires and Icom / D-star , Psk31, Pactor and so on. What are the implications of Digital technology and proprietary software, are they too protected under the Millennium Copyright Act. I just wonder if Ham radio operators are digging themselves a hole by becoming dependent on commercially made gear and proprietary digital technology?

I think Ham radio operators need to insist that any and all Digital technology used in ham radio be Open Source... Maybe even go so far as to ask the FCC to mandate it. Requiring any Digital technology used over the air to be open source seems like a good way of not only protecting ham radio but it also allows more developers to collectively work on such projects, insuring that it is safe and more quickly developed. It would be very difficult to hide objectionable or questionable code in open source software.

Keep in mind people have been fed a bunch of horse dung over the benefits of digital media distribution. The only people who benefit are the media owners and distributors. How will digital modes affect ham radio if some proprietary digital mode becomes standardized.

Many people claimed dropping the CW requirement was going to be the end of Ham radio. Well personally I think digital technology coupled with commercially produced Ham gear utilizing proprietary digital algorithms protected by the Millennium Copyright act poses much more of a threat.
Just food for thought.

[N2RJ]

I have been writing arrl off and on about DRM.

Their response is that it doesn't affect us. I almost cancelled my membership.

[KA4DPO]

My Harvey Wells Bandmaster and SX-71 continue to work just fine in spite of these digital patent lawsuits.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,13:50)]My Harvey Wells Bandmaster and SX-71 continue to work just fine in spite of these digital patent lawsuits.
That's nice but projects like GNU radio can be severely crippled by copyright protection gone amok.

While it's not a "real" radio that glows in the dark, projects like GNU radio are in the spirit of ham radio - homebrewed and the source code shared with the community.

[AE6IP]

any hardware project, and these days, in the US, most software projects, will run afoul of someone's patent.

No one is going to waste money going after amateurs for one off projects.

The big 3 will simply cross license any technology they care to use.

The only problem I see for amateur radio is the liability exposure of the kit makers like Elecraft, but they seem to be coping fine so far.

[ka5piu]

Hell.

MP3 is open source.
And, as long as you are not selling your works, is free.
That is correct, the Linux users have no issues with MP3 whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
As use in amateur radio is not authoring anything, the ARRL response is correct.
And, A legal team at ARRL went over this with both the FCC and the creators of the codecs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs
APCO 25 is based on IMBE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMBE
Engineering samples can be had from TI for around $25 to $1200, depending what one is getting.
I have gotten chipsets themselves for free.
http://www.radioreference.com/trunked/stuff/astro.txt
And, if the license issue gets too far out of hand, people simply do not use the format.
Anybody remember Dolby FM stereo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Laboratories
It is but a faint memory, replaced by an open source compandering scheme that does not work quite as well but is free.
And, as for the last little tidbit.
1, I am Cowthief at www.radioreference.com
2, The adaptor for Astro and APCO 25 works just fine.
The current model uses a set of AA cells in a small box to allow it to be used with some amateur talkies.
The board has already been set up, around $20 for the first board, $12 for all after that.
What you get is one board that you will need to cut into 3, just follow the lines.
The other large board is a signalling support board.
The smaller end board is audio.
You can build all 3 boards into one box or just the Codec board or signalling board and the smaller audio board.
This is under the name "cowthief".
The readme file explains everything else.

Yo

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Feb. 28 2007,12:30)]Hell.

MP3 is open source.
And, as long as you are not selling your works, is free.
That is correct, the Linux users have no issues with MP3 whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
As use in amateur radio is not authoring anything, the ARRL response is correct.
And, A legal team at ARRL went over this with both the FCC and the creators of the codecs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs
APCO 25 is based on IMBE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMBE
Engineering samples can be had from TI for around $25 to $1200, depending what one is getting.
I have gotten chipsets themselves for free.
http://www.radioreference.com/trunked/stuff/astro.txt
And, if the license issue gets too far out of hand, people simply do not use the format.
Anybody remember Dolby FM stereo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Laboratories
It is but a faint memory, replaced by an open source compandering scheme that does not work quite as well but is free.
And, as for the last little tidbit.
1, I am Cowthief at www.radioreference.com
2, The adaptor for Astro and APCO 25 works just fine.
The current model uses a set of AA cells in a small box to allow it to be used with some amateur talkies.
The board has already been set up, around $20 for the first board, $12 for all after that.
What you get is one board that you will need to cut into 3, just follow the lines.
The other large board is a signalling support board.
The smaller end board is audio.
You can build all 3 boards into one box or just the Codec board or signalling board and the smaller audio board.
This is under the name "cowthief".
The readme file explains everything else.

Yo
Well Microsoft just lost a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit over MP3 licensing.

Back in 2003 Microsoft was notified that they did not have the proper license to include the MP3 codec in the Windows operating system. While Microsoft did purchase a license for 16 million dollars this was before 2003 and apparently from the wrong entity. It was determined that that license was not valid and in 2003 Microsoft was asked to ether buy a new license from the actual IP holder or stop including the codec in Windows. The company was more then generous in that they told Microsoft they would not be held liable for the violations up to the point that they where informed.

Well in Microsoft's infinite arrogance they thumbed their noses at the request. That act cost them 1.5 billion dollars http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Just business as usual for Microsoft, steal others work for as long as you can, then tie the actual IP holder up in court until they bankrupt them. Theft by any other name is still stealing. Whether you hold a gun to someones head and steal their wallet or you use the court system to bankrupt your competition after stealing their work it's all the same thing, Stealing!

"In a world without Walls and Fences who needs Windows and Gates" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ Feb. 28 2007,15:24)]Well Microsoft just lost a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit over MP3 licensing.

Back in 2003 Microsoft was notified that they did not have the proper license to include the MP3 codec in the Windows operating system. #While Microsoft did purchase a license for 16 million dollars this was before #2003 and apparently from the wrong entity. It was determined that that license was not valid and in 2003 Microsoft was asked to ether buy a new license from the actual IP holder or stop including the codec in Windows. The company was more then generous in that they told Microsoft they would not be held liable for the violations up to the point that they where informed.

Well in Microsoft's infinite arrogance they thumbed their noses at the request. That act cost them 1.5 billion dollars http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #

#Just business as usual for Microsoft, steal others work for as long as you can, then tie the actual IP holder up in court until they bankrupt them. Theft by any other name is still stealing. Whether you hold a gun to someones head and steal their wallet or you use the court system to bankrupt your competition after stealing their work it's all the same thing, Stealing!

"In a world without Walls and Fences who needs Windows and Gates" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Feel better, now?

[N2RJ]

MP3 is not free! Thomson owns the patents and has been enforcing them like there's no tomorrow.

[ke4pjw]

I am worried about the patent like provisions that are given to copyright holders under the DMCA. The minute people start buying GNU radio to record TV and radio programs that have the no-record bit set "on", we will be noticed as a target.

I am also worried about encumbered technologies being used by us. An example of this is AMBE. It is used in the G4GUO protocol for digital voice systems.

It's going to be an interesting couple of decades.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Feb. 28 2007,06:30)]Hell.

MP3 is open source.
And, as long as you are not selling your works, is free.
That is correct, the Linux users have no issues with MP3 whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
As use in amateur radio is not authoring anything, the ARRL response is correct.
And, A legal team at ARRL went over this with both the FCC and the creators of the codecs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs
APCO 25 is based on IMBE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMBE
Engineering samples can be had from TI for around $25 to $1200, depending what one is getting.
I have gotten chipsets themselves for free.
http://www.radioreference.com/trunked/stuff/astro.txt
And, if the license issue gets too far out of hand, people simply do not use the format.
Anybody remember Dolby FM stereo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Laboratories
It is but a faint memory, replaced by an open source compandering scheme that does not work quite as well but is free.
And, as for the last little tidbit.
1, I am Cowthief at www.radioreference.com
2, The adaptor for Astro and APCO 25 works just fine.
The current model uses a set of AA cells in a small box to allow it to be used with some amateur talkies.
The board has already been set up, around $20 for the first board, $12 for all after that.
What you get is one board that you will need to cut into 3, just follow the lines.
The other large board is a signalling support board.
The smaller end board is audio.
You can build all 3 boards into one box or just the Codec board or signalling board and the smaller audio board.
This is under the name "cowthief".
The readme file explains everything else.

Yo
You keep using the term "Open Source" as if the source being available for a given technology has something to do with it not being encumbered with patents.

Yes, Thomson Consumer Electronics has said the will not sue people who use or distribute "Open Source" implementations of the mp3 CODEC. GHWB also said "No new taxes". We see how that worked out.

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Feb. 28 2007,13:58)]Hell.

[QUOTE=Quote ]
You keep using the term "Open Source" as if the source being available for a given technology has something to do with it not being encumbered with patents.

Yes, Thomson Consumer Electronics has said the will not sue people who use or distribute "Open Source" implementations of the mp3 CODEC. GHWB also said "No new taxes". We see how that worked out.
Good point. I might add that its less likely to include infringing code.

Steve Ballmer keeps claiming that Linux contains infringing code, Yet the source code for the Linux kernel is available for the whole world to see and he has yet to point to a single line of code. And you can bet that Microsoft has software engineers scouring every line of Linux code looking for IP violations. Makes you wonder if Microsoft code could stand the same scrutiny. I just wonder how much questionable code might be found if Microsoft code was opened up to inspection. Could explain why Microsoft is so protective of their code.

Again this is all speculation and far removed from the topic at hand.

The main concept I put forth was to protect Amateur radio by avoiding the use of proprietary digital modes on the air. I even wonder about the wisdom of becoming dependent on software defined radios. Software defined radios open up a whole new world of patent and copyrights that pose more of a threat then a benefit to Amateur radio.

Part of amateur radio is experimentation and development. It's going to be kind of hard to experiment and develop software defined radios if commercial company run out and patented and copyright every conceivable concept and idea.

We as a community need to stop the copyright and patent trolls long before they ever get started. If not we might end up in the same mess the software industry is in right now.

[ac3p]

Analog is free unless somebody tries to copyright it.

Shhh...don't let Gates know or we will be seeing:

MSANALOG® 1.0 # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ Feb. 28 2007,16:23)]Good point. I might add that its less likely to include infringing code.

Steve Ballmer keeps claiming that Linux contains infringing code, Yet the source code for the Linux kernel is available for the whole world to see and he has yet to point to a single line of code. And you can bet that Microsoft has software engineers scouring every line of Linux code looking for IP violations. Makes you wonder if Microsoft code could stand the same scrutiny. I just wonder how much questionable code might be found if Microsoft code was opened up to inspection. Could explain why Microsoft is so protective of their code.
Yes it is vague, but Novell's deal with Microsoft didn't do a lot of good to refute that claim.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1

But that's precisely the problem.

Many patents, particularly software patents, tend to be so vague that they can cover a wide variety of intellectual property. Especially dangerous are the "method" patents.


Quote[/b] ]
The main concept I put forth was to protect Amateur radio by avoiding the use of proprietary digital modes on the air. I even wonder about the wisdom of becoming dependent on software defined radios. Software defined radios open up a whole new world of patent and copyrights that pose more of a threat then a benefit to Amateur radio.

Agreed. I believe you're referring to SCS and Pactor II and III?

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Feb. 28 2007,14:57)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ Feb. 28 2007,16:23)]Good point. I might add that its less likely to include infringing code.

Steve Ballmer keeps claiming that Linux contains infringing code, Yet the source code for the Linux kernel is available for the whole world to see and he has yet to point to a single line of code. And you can bet that Microsoft has software engineers scouring every line of Linux code looking for IP violations. Makes you wonder if Microsoft code could stand the same scrutiny. I just wonder how much questionable code might be found if Microsoft code was opened up to inspection. Could explain why Microsoft is so protective of their code.
Yes it is vague, but Novell's deal with Microsoft didn't do a lot of good to refute that claim.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1

But that's precisely the problem.

Many patents, particularly software patents, tend to be so vague that they can cover a wide variety of intellectual property. Especially dangerous are the "method" patents.


Quote[/b] ]
The main concept I put forth was to protect Amateur radio by avoiding the use of proprietary digital modes on the air. I even wonder about the wisdom of becoming dependent on software defined radios. Software defined radios open up a whole new world of patent and copyrights that pose more of a threat then a benefit to Amateur radio.

Agreed. I believe you're referring to SCS and Pactor II and III?
The problem with the Novel Microsoft deal was the spin Microsoft put on it. All the news agency's reported that Novel paid Microsoft 40 million dollars. Microsoft claimed this was some sort of license to prevent Microsoft from suing Linux users. This is nothing more the BS.
The old saying "Those who sleep with dogs get fleas" is so true in this situation Novel should have known better then enter a deal with the likes of Microsoft. They made their bed now they have to sleep in it.

No one entering into a deal with Microsoft has ever come out unscathed, in fact most have had their IP stolen and then been corkscrewed into bankruptcy. If you are a software developer the last thing you want to do is sign a deal with Microsoft, You might as well be signing your own death warrant.

The funny thing about the Microsoft Novel deal is that everyone talks about the 40 million that Novel paid Microsoft but no one talks about the 440 million Microsoft paid Novel. If I remember correctly the entire deal was for 480 million and Microsoft deducted 40 million for some obscure reason. I wonder what Kind of IP violations Microsoft had that forced them to pay Novel 440 million dollars..

Pactor II and III was around long before I became a Ham and I don't know much about it other then you need to buy a $1000. proprietary board to use it. Like I said I am not a fan of this sort of thing. If it goes out over the airwaves in the ham bands then it needs to be an open standard that anyone can access. I don't want to open up a can of worms, but I have got to really wonder about the legality's surrounding this. How do the FCC and the OO know if commercial, or inappropriate data is being transmitted via these modes.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Feb. 28 2007,12:34)]MP3 is not free! Thomson owns the patents and has been enforcing them like there's no tomorrow.
MP3 is free. It's just a specification that's now an ISO standard.

What's not free is the implementation of a certain codec for translating to and from MP3s. There are patents on that, and Microsoft apparently failed to license the codec they were using.

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 28 2007,15:23)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Feb. 28 2007,12:34)]MP3 is not free! #Thomson owns the patents and has been enforcing them like there's no tomorrow.
MP3 is free. It's just a specification that's now an ISO standard.

What's not free is the implementation of a certain codec for translating to and from MP3s. There are patents on that, and Microsoft apparently failed to license the codec they were using.
Hello.

Correct.
I had made contact with DVSI,
http://www.dvsinc.com/
And TI.
This was when APCO 25 was just beginning to hit the market.
Every conversation indicated that I was a radio amateur.
This worked out well, people at IEEE did wonders in opening doors.
The only trouble I had was when I posted something on the Batlabs forum.
One member so POed everybody that several people called me.
So, one must make it clear that this is a non-commercial Amateur Radio application, and not be a total pain in the seating area.
And, keep some of it quiet, at least do not post it for all the world to see.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 28 2007,09:23)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Feb. 28 2007,12:34)]MP3 is not free! Thomson owns the patents and has been enforcing them like there's no tomorrow.
MP3 is free. It's just a specification that's now an ISO standard.

What's not free is the implementation of a certain codec for translating to and from MP3s. There are patents on that, and Microsoft apparently failed to license the codec they were using.
I am not aware of anyone that honestly thinks there is a away around the Fraunhofer patents held on mp3. (So as to make it interoperable)

The reference code ISO made available is encumbered by Fraunhofer's patents.

The Fraunhofer patents are the ones Microsoft DID license. The ones they recently were sued over were held by AT&T. They are now held by Lucent/Alcatel.

It looks like everyone is going to have to pay the piper AGAIN!

mp3 is an IP minefield.

[va7aax]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ Feb. 28 2007,10:54)]Could proprietary Digital technology pose a risk to Ham radio.

With so many company's suing over intellectual property, copyrights and patents related to Digital Media and Software. I'm starting to wonder how this could affect Ham radio.

Just as an example Microsoft just lost a 1.5 billion dollar IP case involving MP3. "rightfully so this time" Its about time they got dinged hard. #Anyhow doesn't some ham radio software incorporate MP3 ?? Maybe its time they shifted to an open source audio compression format such as ogg, not only is ogg open source its far better then Mp3. Furthermore moving to ogg would also protect software developers and Ham radio users from lawsuits related to MP3 IP licensing #

Anyhow this got me wondering about The large ham radio company's and their intentions with digital technology in ham radio.

I am beginning to wonder about the dangers of ham radio going digital ie. Yaesu /Wires and Icom / D-star , Psk31, Pactor and so on. What are the implications of Digital technology and proprietary software, are they too protected under the Millennium Copyright Act. I just wonder if Ham radio operators are digging themselves a hole by becoming dependent on commercially made gear and proprietary digital technology? #

I think Ham radio operators need to insist that any and all Digital technology used in ham radio be Open Source... Maybe even go so far as to ask the FCC to mandate it. Requiring any Digital technology used over the air to be open source seems like a good way of not only protecting ham radio but it also allows more developers to collectively work on such projects, insuring that it is safe and more quickly developed. #It would be very difficult to hide objectionable #or questionable code in open source software. #

Keep in mind people have been fed a bunch of horse dung over the benefits of digital media distribution. The only people who benefit are the media owners and distributors. How will digital modes affect ham radio if some proprietary digital mode becomes standardized.

Many people claimed dropping the CW requirement was going to be the end of Ham radio. Well personally I think digital technology coupled with commercially produced Ham gear utilizing proprietary digital algorithms #protected by the Millennium Copyright act poses much more of a threat.
Just food for thought.
after reading this post, i thought that ham radio or amateur radio is a hobby. so why all this complications of copyright and stuff?

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Feb. 28 2007,23:05)]after reading this post, i thought that ham radio or amateur radio is a hobby. so why all this complications of copyright and stuff?
why would the "hobby" nature of amateur radio prevent these patents from having an impact om amateur radio operators? it's not like the patent holders are saying "oh ... you guys are the ham dudes ... free rides for all of you!"