On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:59:24AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote: > magenta wrote: > > You don't understand how patents work, do you? All of those people > > (except OpenIL, anyway) have licensed the algorithm itself. The > > algorithm is freely-available (it's even part of the patent > > documents). The problem is that S3 haven't released the patent to the > > public domain, and so they can sue whomever they want if they're using > > the patent without an appropriate license. > > I believe the point was that since NVidia is distributing source code > implementing S3TC with an unrestrictive licence, that they are just as > vulnerable as DRI is. They might have a licence for their own use of > the algorithm, but they can't transfer that licence to the rest of the > world.
But they're not transferring the license to others, they're just providing a reference implementation. nVidia themselves wouldn't be sued for it, but someone releasing new software using that implementation could be. It's the same situation that a number of mp3 encoders were in a couple years ago; Fraunhofer released a reference implementation for ISO specification purposes, and then they turned around and sued everyone who used that reference implementation in their own encoder. > This tends to imply to my non-lawyer eyes that the S3TC patent is very > unlikely to be strongly enforced. If VIA wants to sue someone, > they'll sue the entity with assets first. Or maybe they *have* made > such a broad licence grant to NVidia, allowing them to redistribute > the patent licence free of charge. In which case DRI can just include > the S3TC code and use it under the NVidia licence. Allowing one party > to redistribute patent rights but not another is hardly a "reasonable > and nondiscriminatory" licence. But there's nothing about patents which requires them to be under a reasonable or nondiscriminatory license. > Either way, DRI looks safe to me. And remember that this isn't a DMCA > violation, just a patent issue. No one is going to jail, and it would > be (non-legal advice here!) extraordinarily difficult to prove any > actual damages. And there is no one involved with DRI with assets to > pay such an award anyway. Really, the worst that can happen is that > you will be forced to take the code out. Good point, in theory. In practice, see how Fraunhofer handled their compression patent. Didn't they sue a lot of the free encoder makers for damages based on the spurious claim that they were "funded by banner ads?" (Not that DRI has banner ads anywhere, but it does/did have funding from third-party sources, and a particularly twisted lawyer could claim that the work itself is a form of funding...) -- http://trikuare.cx ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Geek Gift Procrastinating? Get the perfect geek gift now! Before the Holidays pass you by. T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/ _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
