Hi, I am going to implement a g.722 codec into a DSP. My first task has consisted of looking for information about it and I have just found in ITU-R an interesting file: G.191 "ITU-T Software Tool Library" where several C files of G.722 are included. Face with this, my question is very simple: do these files contain the complete codec? why are there different companies which sell that codec if ITU-R offers the C-files free!? Why are these files available? Thanx in advance Jajo.
Doubts about G.191
Started by ●May 12, 2008
Reply by ●May 12, 20082008-05-12
jajo wrote:> Hi, > > I am going to implement a g.722 codec into a DSP. My first task has > consisted of looking for information about it and I have just found in > ITU-R an interesting file: G.191 "ITU-T Software Tool Library" where > several C files of G.722 are included. Face with this, my question is > very simple: do these files contain the complete codec? why are there > different companies which sell that codec if ITU-R offers the C-files > free!? Why are these files available?1. The G.722 contains intellectual property, so even if you have the C source code, you got to have all necessary licenses for using it in the commercial applications. The codecs offered by the other companies may have that issue taken care off already. 2. The C code from ITU-T is just for the reference; it is non specific and vastly inefficient. The codecs from the other companies are optimized for the particular applications. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●May 12, 20082008-05-12
On 12 mayo, 18:00, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> jajo wrote: > > Hi, > > > I am going to implement a g.722 codec into a DSP. My first task has > > consisted of looking for information about it and I have just found in > > ITU-R an interesting file: G.191 "ITU-T Software Tool Library" where > > several C files of G.722 are included. Face with this, my question is > > very simple: do these files contain the complete codec? why are there > > different companies which sell that codec if ITU-R offers the C-files > > free!? Why are these files available? > > 1. The G.722 contains intellectual property, so even if you have the C > source code, you got to have all necessary licenses for using it in the > commercial applications. The codecs offered by the other companies may > have that issue taken care off already. > > 2. The C code from ITU-T is just for the reference; it is non specific > and vastly inefficient. The codecs from the other companies are > optimized for the particular applications. > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.comOk, but I thought that G.722 was free of license so anybody could implement it without payment. Is this right? I have a more general question, where can I find information about the intellectual property of this kind of codecs (G.722, G.726, G.729, G. 723.1, an so on) since I have a lot of problems to find any information about license. Thankx Jajo
Reply by ●May 12, 20082008-05-12
jajo wrote:> On 12 mayo, 18:00, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>1. The G.722 contains intellectual property, so even if you have the C >>source code, you got to have all necessary licenses for using it in the >>commercial applications. The codecs offered by the other companies may >>have that issue taken care off already. >> >>2. The C code from ITU-T is just for the reference; it is non specific >>and vastly inefficient. The codecs from the other companies are >>optimized for the particular applications. >> > Ok, but I thought that G.722 was free of license so anybody could > implement it without payment. Is this right?Most likely this is not right.> I have a more general question, where can I find information about the > intellectual property of this kind of codecs (G.722, G.726, G.729, G. > 723.1, an so on) since I have a lot of problems to find any > information about license.The copyright information is contained in the annexes of the specifications. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●May 12, 20082008-05-12
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> jajo wrote: >> Ok, but I thought that G.722 was free of license so anybody could >> implement it without payment. Is this right? > > Most likely this is not right.According to wikipedia the G.722 patents have expired.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.722#Licensing It doesn't say which patent in particular is relevant though. IIRC it was and AT&T patent? Regards -- Adrian Hey
Reply by ●May 12, 20082008-05-12
jajo wrote:> On 12 mayo, 18:00, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> jajo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I am going to implement a g.722 codec into a DSP. My first task has >>> consisted of looking for information about it and I have just found in >>> ITU-R an interesting file: G.191 "ITU-T Software Tool Library" where >>> several C files of G.722 are included. Face with this, my question is >>> very simple: do these files contain the complete codec? why are there >>> different companies which sell that codec if ITU-R offers the C-files >>> free!? Why are these files available? >> 1. The G.722 contains intellectual property, so even if you have the C >> source code, you got to have all necessary licenses for using it in the >> commercial applications. The codecs offered by the other companies may >> have that issue taken care off already. >> >> 2. The C code from ITU-T is just for the reference; it is non specific >> and vastly inefficient. The codecs from the other companies are >> optimized for the particular applications. >> >> Vladimir Vassilevsky >> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com > > Ok, but I thought that G.722 was free of license so anybody could > implement it without payment. Is this right? > > I have a more general question, where can I find information about the > intellectual property of this kind of codecs (G.722, G.726, G.729, G. > 723.1, an so on) since I have a lot of problems to find any > information about license.G.722 is so old the patents have expired. You can use it freely. The code in G.191 is a complete 64k bps codec, as far as I remember. If you want to make it usable for commercial work you will probably find you need to do quote a lot to it. That's why people can make a business out of selling optimised versions. Steve
Reply by ●May 13, 20082008-05-13
On 13 mayo, 01:54, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:> jajo wrote: > > On 12 mayo, 18:00, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> jajo wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> I am going to implement a g.722 codec into a DSP. My first task has > >>> consisted of looking for information about it and I have just found in > >>> ITU-R an interesting file: G.191 "ITU-T Software Tool Library" where > >>> several C files of G.722 are included. Face with this, my question is > >>> very simple: do these files contain the complete codec? why are there > >>> different companies which sell that codec if ITU-R offers the C-files > >>> free!? Why are these files available? > >> 1. The G.722 contains intellectual property, so even if you have the C > >> source code, you got to have all necessary licenses for using it in the > >> commercial applications. The codecs offered by the other companies may > >> have that issue taken care off already. > > >> 2. The C code from ITU-T is just for the reference; it is non specific > >> and vastly inefficient. The codecs from the other companies are > >> optimized for the particular applications. > > >> Vladimir Vassilevsky > >> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com > > > Ok, but I thought that G.722 was free of license so anybody could > > implement it without payment. Is this right? > > > I have a more general question, where can I find information about the > > intellectual property of this kind of codecs (G.722, G.726, G.729, G. > > 723.1, an so on) since I have a lot of problems to find any > > information about license. > > G.722 is so old the patents have expired. You can use it freely. The > code in G.191 is a complete 64k bps codec, as far as I remember. If you > want to make it usable for commercial work you will probably find you > need to do quote a lot to it. That's why people can make a business out > of selling optimised versions. > > SteveThankx everybody!, Adrian I had found that information and my reaction was: "ok!, but is there any place as well as Wikipedia where that information is available?", I think it is very difficult to find the answer for this kind of questions (licenses, royalties, etc, isn't it? Jajo
Reply by ●May 13, 20082008-05-13
jajo wrote:> Thankx everybody!, > > Adrian I had found that information and my reaction was: "ok!, but is > there any place as well as Wikipedia where that information is > available?", I think it is very difficult to find the answer for this > kind of questions (licenses, royalties, etc, isn't it?It seems the ITU-T and other standards organisations are getting their act together re. intellectual property rights so life is a bit simpler for anyone wanting to implement <whatever> compliant with standards. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ipr/ http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/dbase/patent/patent-policy.html http://www.itu.int/ipr/IPRSearch.aspx If you look at the patent-policy link above it seems that the standards organisations concerned are still happy to incorporate "para. 2.2" IPR claims into standards. Ultimately it's up to you to decide whether or not you take any of this seriously. But remember that just because some organisation claims to "own" part of some standard, it ain't necessarily so. The ITU-T or whoever typically won't express any opinion about this, they just provide a place for organisations to register thier ownership claims. Using the search link on G.722 throws up 6 "para 2.2" claims, but maybe the wikipedia page is still correct (you need to check dates) e.g. using http://www.google.com/patents Regards -- Adrian Hey
Reply by ●May 13, 20082008-05-13
On May 13, 10:00 am, Adrian Hey <a...@NoSpicedHam.iee.org> wrote:> jajo wrote: > > Thankx everybody!, > > > Adrian I had found that information...> Regards > -- > Adrian Heyhey Adrian, nice to see your name pop outa the woodwork. where have you been? r b-j
Reply by ●May 14, 20082008-05-14
