On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 16:47 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote: > trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > > What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the > > g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to > > be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but > > not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write > > their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat > > patent fee. > > > > Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as > > likely. > > From: http://www.sipro.com/ > > Many companies believe that because the source code of a technology can be > accessed at nearly no charge, they can integrate it within their products > without considering intellectual property. They argue that since they possess > the code itself they certainly have the rights to use this technology. > > >
Yeah a company that is trying to get people to pay, should I quote sco.com about their $699/cpu linux license? Just because a company charges doesnt always mean they should. And if they are solely going off the patent (which they would have to if they didnt write the code in question, thus my comments about a 3rd party writing a compliant codec) then they may not have a leg to stand on legally speaking in certain countries, and the comments I read (again as I said before I havent read the actual statute) was that in the UK at least you cant patent an idea or methodology, but instead only a physical device, which the code isnt, even sippro calls it "intellectual property" - ie nontangible. And that was what I was commenting on. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz