| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FUDFUDPosted Aug 31, 2010 18:08 UTC (Tue) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648)In reply to: FUD by coriordan Parent article: Hold The Celebrations; H.264 Is Not The Sort Of Free That Matters (ComputerWorld UK)
I have two things to say about this. First, the case with DVD Jon was never fully resolved, but just kind of dropped, so it has little value. Second, the DVD Jon case was about copyright infringement, not patents, so it is not relevant here in any case.
Distributing software could, arguably, be patent infringement. However, there is an independent experimentation defense to patent infringement which very well may apply. Also, you could say that you are distributing the software to help other independent experimenters or for use by people who do have a patent license. As far as I can tell, no one has ever been sued for distributing source code, so we really just don't know.
---linuxrocks123
(Log in to post comments)
FUD Posted Sep 1, 2010 17:03 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> I have two things to say about this. First, the case with DVD Jon was
> never fully resolved, but just kind of dropped, so it has little value.
Where did you get the idea? DVD Jon won fair and square, then the appeal was laughed out of court...
FUD Posted Sep 20, 2010 23:53 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648) [Link]
My apologies, this was conflating a few issues. You are correct that DVD Jon won fair and square in Norway. What I was thinking of were the subsequent cases in the U.S. against various people not Jon. I seem to recall that these cases were, ultimately, dropped by the MPAA, although I don't care to look them up right now. So, there's little legal precedent in the U.S. for this that goes our way.
---linuxrocks123
|
|
||||||||||||