Has anyone mentioned a patent number? [LWN.net]

Has anyone mentioned a patent number?

Posted Sep 5, 2006 16:04 UTC (Tue) by edmundo (guest, #616)
Parent article: SanDisk faces MP3 licence dispute (BBC)

Some people say that you should just ignore people who bluster on about patent portfolios without mentioning a particular patent.

I've not looked at any of the MP3 patents, and I don't intend to, but I've seen it claimed that it seems rather unlikely that they would be enforceable against MP3 decoders.

It would be interesting if this dispute went to court, but I would guess that it won't happen. Sisvel would probably prefer to give money to SanDisk in a secret out-of-court settlement rather than have their patent declared invalid.

(Log in to post comments)

Has anyone mentioned a patent number?

Posted Sep 5, 2006 16:31 UTC (Tue) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link]

"Sisvel would probably prefer to give money to SanDisk"

I thought they would prefer the other way.

Has anyone mentioned a patent number?

Posted Sep 5, 2006 16:36 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

mp3licensing.com has a list of patents as well as a price list. A decode-only license for MP3 costs US$0.75 per unit.

Total cost of the parts in an iPod Nano one year ago: $90.

Yes, the parts prices are coming down and the MP3 license is not, but does using an unlicensed MP3 implementation really save them that much?

Has anyone mentioned a patent number?

Posted Sep 5, 2006 18:43 UTC (Tue) by shalem (subscriber, #4062) [Link]

Maybe they are a good company and are not paying the license out of principle?

Has anyone mentioned a patent number?

Posted Sep 5, 2006 23:22 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I don't think willful infringement is the kind of thing good companies do. Lobbying and pushing for change in the laws would be great, but willful infringement just makes the legal penalites higher. As long as the laws are there, you're pretty much stuck with complying with the law or risking bankruptcy-grade penalties.