David Walser wrote on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:26:11PM -0700 : > > Warning: I am not a lawyer. > same idem
> > I believe you're right, but the farther you go > > towards making stuff automatic, > > the more likely you are to be infringing the patent. > a patent can't just cover decoding mp3 files no matter > how you do it. They can license their particular > decoder code however they want, but any code that's > not derived from it most likely doesn't infringe any > patent and can't require royalties no matter what > frauenhoffer might say. The code is not what is patentend. It's the algorithm. I thought the stance was they were enforcing their patent for all encoders and only for commercial decoders (and leaving free decoders alone). Has that changed since last week or was last week merely speculation? Blue skies... Todd -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-5mdk
msg72658/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
