Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)

[Joseph Daniel Zukiger]

--- Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
> 
> > What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer
> that
> > their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs
> are
> > free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us?
> 
> In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the
> patent says, it
> matters how the court *interprets* that law and
> patent.  Case law for
> patents is considered particularly random. 
> Therefore, no one can --
> even in theory -- offer a guarantee.

Something which should be a very string signal to
someone in the courts and in Congress that the current
interpretations of the current patent laws have
allowed breach of the Constitutionally provided checks
and balances.

> What they can offer is a risk assessment, like
> insurance companies use
> to set rates.

Insurance companies, being at the center of the
breach, should be considered traitors to the
Constitution (or serious chumps).

> As an analogy, Apple, Nokia, et. al. won't promise
> that the bridge is
> safe to cross, but they will tell you that they (who
> are much heavier)
> have already crossed it.

Hubris? Self-delusion? 

Evidence that they are planning an ambush?

> A single hobbyist who can't afford to hire a lawyer
> is relatively
> safe, because he or she is "judgment-proof" -- even
> if the patent
> trolls win, they won't get their money back.

Unless the troll is Microsoft or other large OS vendor
(probably operating by wire through some relatively
unknown) looking to squelch the ability of the little
guys to act independently.

No, I am not being paranoid. (Wherefore neoSCO?)

> A large corporation may be worth shaking down,
> because they'll often
> settle even stupid cases just to avoid the costs and
> risks of legal
> fees.  Therefore, if BigCorp has already used the
> technology widely
> enough to be expensive, *and* has not been sued, it
> at least suggests
> that no trolls have any relevant patents.

A conclusion contrary to the evidence of court
activity in progress (some of which has been mentioned
in other threads), if you don't mind my saying so.

joudanzuki


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)

[Michael Dale]

I don't know if that entirely true..

In Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. for example:

"Lucent had not made any representations that its patents would be 
licensed through MPEG LA; to the contrary, Defendants such as Gateway 
were informed that they would need a license directly from Lucent. 
Moreover, the MPEG LA sublicensee agreement explicitly warns that the 
MPEG LA pool *does not necessarily include all the patents necessary to 
practice the technology and that sublicensee signs the agreement aware 
of such risks*. (Blackburn Dec. Ex. 20 §§ 4.2, 4.3.)"


I am not an "expert" who can claim anything to any certainty when it 
comes to submarine patents? ...My observation of the litigation history 
shows theora is "safer" to implement than mpeg la stuff.

metavid.ucsc.ed/blog has some more "observations" to that end ;)

michael dale
metavid.org


Jerason Banes wrote:
If by "Corporate Blessed", you mean codecs like H.264, there's a very 
simple answer to that. Nokia and Apple pay licensing fees to a company 
called MPEG LA. MPEG LA indemnifies Nokia and Apple from patent 
lawsuits over the use of MPEG-related codecs. Should anyone come 
forward with a new patent, the MPEG LA will litigate the matter and/or 
come to an agreement with the patent holder to license the patent on 
behalf of their member companies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing

Thanks,
Jerason Banes

On Dec 12, 2007 7:15 AM, Joseph Daniel Zukiger < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that
their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are
free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? Are they
willing to make binding agreements to go to bat for
_us_ in court?

Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)

[Jerason Banes]

If by "Corporate Blessed", you mean codecs like H.264, there's a very simple
answer to that. Nokia and Apple pay licensing fees to a company called MPEG
LA. MPEG LA indemnifies Nokia and Apple from patent lawsuits over the use of
MPEG-related codecs. Should anyone come forward with a new patent, the MPEG
LA will litigate the matter and/or come to an agreement with the patent
holder to license the patent on behalf of their member companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing

Thanks,
Jerason Banes

On Dec 12, 2007 7:15 AM, Joseph Daniel Zukiger <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that
> their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are
> free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? Are they
> willing to make binding agreements to go to bat for
> _us_ in court?