| |||||||||||||
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)Posted Jan 17, 2011 16:32 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by roc Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
No, that just means that they believe that the risk of them being enforceable is greater than the savings of not licensing.
(Log in to post comments)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 18, 2011 0:33 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Actually, it's probably a case of "if we have to licence them for the USA, we might as well licence them for the world".
They are NOT enforceable in Europe. One simply has to quote the European Patent Treaty to the Judge and it's "end of court case". Or at least, it is if you can persuade the Judge that your stuff falls into the EXplicitly excluded category, which is all software patents.
Problem is, a bit like in the US, the lawyers like to argue and if they can persuade the Judge that "All Software Patents" is a bit vague and woolly, they might get a result ...
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||