| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
MPEG LA targetsMPEG LA targetsPosted Sep 1, 2010 14:39 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (guest, #56877)In reply to: MPEG LA targets by DonDiego Parent article: Hold The Celebrations; H.264 Is Not The Sort Of Free That Matters (ComputerWorld UK)
1) If you notice the quoted text, open source wasn't the only thing being discussed.
2) This will be of little comfort to commercial entities (e.g. GOOG) 3) Yet. Hooray for patent uncertainty!
(Log in to post comments)
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 1, 2010 15:54 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> 1) If you notice the quoted text, open source wasn't the only thing being
> discussed.
I neither meant nor implied only FOSS was being discussed, please reread my comment again.
> 2) This will be of little comfort to commercial entities (e.g. GOOG)
Google is an MPEG LA licensee for the H.264/AVC patent pool, they are not in need of comfort.
> 3) Yet. Hooray for patent uncertainty!
Sad as it is, there is no such thing as certainty with software patents. And as much as it hurts to say so, the MPEG LA is in the business of giving its clients patent certainty...
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 1, 2010 16:24 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] I neither meant nor implied only FOSS was being discussed, please reread my comment again.Fair 'nuff, I suppose. My point solely addressed the assertion that MPEG LA hadn't sued anybody. Hooray for implicit limitations. Google is an MPEG LA licensee for the H.264/AVC patent pool, they are not in need of comfort. For that one yes, and for the specific software and uses for which they paid proection money, not others ways in which they may be found to infringe. In addition, not all companies are GOOG nor are all downstream users of "Free" and Open Source software (quotes because the freedom of a software that is known by its developers to infringe on patents is IMHO highly dubious) are MPEG LA licensees of the relevant licenses. And as much as it hurts to say so, the MPEG LA is in the business of giving its clients patent certainty...Well, in as much as "we're not going to be sued by MPEG LA" is increasing the certainty. It's not the same as "we're not going to be sued for patent infringement". Rather like paying "protection money" helps ensure that your "protectors" won't be the ones to bust up your store and employees (but is no guarantee that nobody else will). Actually, perhaps MPEG LA licensing is even less of a guarantee than such "protection" schemes offer, because they defend their turf....
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 1, 2010 22:35 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > Google is an MPEG LA licensee for the H.264/AVC patent pool, they are not in need of comfort.
> For that one yes, and for the specific software and uses for which they paid proection money, not others ways in which they may be found to infringe.
Where do you get this idea from? The MPEG LA licenses are not in any way specific to software. In what other ways do you say Google could be infringing and not be covered by MPEG LA patents?
> (quotes because the freedom of a software that is known by its developers to infringe on patents is IMHO highly dubious)
So the Linux kernel is not free? Is Samba not free? VLC player? Firefox? You can continue the list indefinitely I'm afraid.
There is of course software where the authors do not know it infringes on patents, but that will likely change for any nontrivial software if the authors started looking.
So is software free while the authors live in blissful ignorance, but no longer free once they start looking or somebody informs them of the fact that a patent is infringed?
> > And as much as it hurts to say so, the MPEG LA is in the business of giving its clients patent certainty...
> Well, in as much as "we're not going to be sued by MPEG LA" is increasing the certainty.
Of course it increases the certainty. The MPEG LA patent pools cover a lot of companies and a lot of patents. You seem to think that only absolute and complete certainty/protection is worth paying for and anything less is not worth a single dime. This is not true and obviously the MPEG LA licensees disagree. Getting a license was worth money for them and they did not get snake oil.
Seat belts do not give you absolute certainty/protection in car crashes. Nonetheless I'm sure that you will agree it's wise to use them.
I dislike software patents at least as much as the next guy. The system must be changed, but pretending it does not exist or claiming that the people forced to work inside it are all complete fools does not help anyone.
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 1, 2010 23:32 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]
Whatever, dude. Clearly, continued discussion with you is pointless. Perhaps we can continue this in its proper place--over a beer. Until then, whatever.
MPEG LA beer Posted Sep 2, 2010 20:19 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Whatever, dude. Clearly, continued discussion with you is pointless.
> Perhaps we can continue this in its proper place--over a beer. Until then, whatever.
Gladly! :)
Do you attend, FOSDEM, LinuxTag or similar events in central Europe?
MPEG LA beer Posted Sep 2, 2010 20:21 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]
I hope to someday, but I don't yet. Stupid obligations and responsibility and not being a full-time linux hacker. :(
Beers galore Posted Sep 8, 2010 19:37 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] We need a lot of beers in a lot of places (and not only for its delicious foam and nutritive properties). Luckily you are mostly agreeing on the big picture.
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 2, 2010 2:50 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (subscriber, #60281) [Link]
> Sad as it is, there is no such thing as certainty with software patents.
Yep.
> And as much as it hurts to say so, the MPEG LA is in the business of
Come on, this has been discussed to death.
Suppose I manage to get a patent that bears on x264, or video decoding in general. Then I can form MPEG-LA 2.0 and start suing all the same people that MPEG-LA 1.0 could sue.
Paying MPEG-LA doesn't give you certainty of anything, except that your bank balance will be lower afterwards. In a world where "one-click ordering" or putting an LCD screen next to an e-ink screen can be patented, it's not unreasonable to suppose that there is an MPEG-LA 2.0 out there already.
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 2, 2010 3:03 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (subscriber, #60281) [Link]
I almost forgot to mention the most important part. MPEG-LA 1.0 can't sue 2.0. They are both "non-practicing entities", so they cannot be sued for patent infringement.
So there is no way that the MPEG-LA can defend its turf through the legal system. I guess it could try to coerce its "customers" to attack MPEG-LA 2.0 in court, but that's not likely to benefit the customers / victims since they'll end up spending millions more.
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 2, 2010 20:22 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Suppose I manage to get a patent that bears on x264, or video decoding in
> general. Then I can form MPEG-LA 2.0 and start suing all the same people > that MPEG-LA 1.0 could sue.
In theory yes, in practice it's not so easy to get new patents on H.264 and it's only the MPEG LA going around extorting people for protection money.
Besides, a seat belt only protects you certain types of car accidents. Would you therefore not recommend wearing one?
MPEG LA targets Posted Sep 3, 2010 12:10 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Suppose I manage to get a patent that bears on x264, or video decoding in general. Then I can form MPEG-LA 2.0 and start suing all the same people that MPEG-LA 1.0 could sue. I thought MPEG-LA 2.0 existed already.
|
|
||||||||||||