good evening ,
there was an intersting statement a while ago in the apple streaming
list that i like to share:
<--->
> If you use a technique covered by a patent for your own, private
> use, you are not obliged to pay royalty fees.
> --> if you compile sources and build an executable you can then use
> them without problems for your own.
> Or, if you read a patent for a milk shaker and you built it on
your own
> according to the patent and use it only by yourself , do it.
> This is an exception in the worldwide laws agreed by the WIPO.
>(research & development and private use are the exceptions agreed
in the acts.)
>If I start selling milk shakes made with the patented milk shaker
made on my own (or distribute video encoded using an algorithm
covered by patents, but with >a freely available encoder), do I have
to pay royalties?
>I believe I do ... but maybe not under the same conditions as if I
wanted to sell the milk shaker itself or the compiled encoder?
> You do not have to pay royalties for the milk shake itself,
except, the receipe to produce this milk shake is covered by a patent.
>Like video bitstreams. You can encode MPEG-4 video bitstreams only
with mechanisms covered by a patent.
>If you encode for yourself, nobody matters. If you _use_ them in a
commercial way, e.g. _distribute_ them, you are _using_
>patents. For the usage of a patent you need a license. Even if it
is royalty free like H.263, you have a license.
>(Same in open source. You have a license to distribute the _source_
and sometimes the binary. Even if you do not pay anything.)
>So, of course all companies selling products covered by patents
have to get a license and have to pay royalties sometimes.
>Another Intelectual Property Right (IPR) is the copyright and the
"protection of utility patents".
>I.e. the form and shape of the Coca Cola bottle.
<--->
just my two cents about patents;)
regards
marc
*back to lurking mode*
On Sep 26, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 26 Sep 2007 at 14:06 +0200, Harald Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Note that if:
- Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening
- Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF
standard
- Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil
paint
- Company A paints their house with such an oil paint
- Company B asserts their patent on slow-drying oil paint against
company A
then company B will automatically be the target for an assertion
of the
nanosecond patent against all its uses of that patent, past,
present and
future, within or outside the scope of the relevant IETF standard.
It's a blanket license for use of the technology by any company that
doesn't hold a patent, but it's definitely not a "no strings
attached"
policy.
Harald, <sigh> this again.
- It's a blanket statement for anyone, including those who have
patents, who agree not to assert them. No license required.
- You can sue any time you like. All that happens is that this
agreement disappears. See the text.
- If you don't want to be bound by a non-assertion agreement, you
can get a license right at the very beginning. Some people do opt
for this. If you have a problem with getting license-free use in
return for not suing, you could too.
So what are you missing? All you "lose" is the ability to use the
technology license-free AND sue the holder at the same time.
This promotes sharing of technology and joint development of the
Internet. The only people who lose here are the patent parasites who
make a living off lawsuits, and those who insist that technology be
patent-free without actually looking at the terms of use.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-
there's no place like 127.0.0.1
until we found ::1 -- which is even bigger
web: http://www.let.de
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf