Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
The point is that "<Large Corporate Entity> would never sue end users, because they have no money" is an argument that has failed in the past.
>> Plus, let me remind you that your guess about the intention of the
>> MPEG-LA to "not require" licenses for free software proved to be
>> completely wrong.
> I never said any such thing.
> You don't need a license from the MPEG-LA (and neither does FFmpeg)
> because you don't qualify for requiring one:
Suing individual users of H.264
Posted Feb 8, 2010 2:07 UTC (Mon) by jhhaller (subscriber, #56103)
Posted Feb 8, 2010 4:01 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
"In the US, my understanding (IANAL) is that practicing a patent does not require a license, only importing or distributing."
The USPTO Sez (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/#patent)
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
Relevant portions bolded and italicized by me. (See also the the MPEG-LA's response to my query in the other article comments.
Certainly, if I were to write my own H.264 decoder, I am not infringing.
Yes, you would. That would be the non-bolded "making" above, which precedes the bolded "using".
Now, if I were to distribute a software decoder, that would require a license under current case law.
Perhaps under current case law (IANAL), but not under a strict reading of the USPTO's talk (as long as it's not for sale, sold, or brought into the US).
Posted Feb 8, 2010 20:50 UTC (Mon) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
Incorrect. Practicing requires a license.
> Certainly, if I were to write my own H.264 decoder, I am not infringing.
Incorrect. If you used it, you would be infringing.
Posted Feb 8, 2010 21:10 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
If you used it, you would be infringing.
If you used an encoder/decoder that you wrote, you'd be infringing twice (see the USPTO link above; the act of making a patented idea is prohibited, as is using an implementation without a license).
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds