| |||||||||||||
The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launchesThe WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launchesPosted Apr 26, 2011 7:43 UTC (Tue) by rilder (subscriber, #59804)Parent article: The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches
These 'patent' pools *don't* work. There have been several instances of members of people cross suing each other. This is like fixing something broken by repeatedly patching it. In this case, the broken one is the legal system and that needs to be fixed before it worsens.
(Log in to post comments)
The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches Posted Apr 26, 2011 9:37 UTC (Tue) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
Well, it might not work in the long term but as long as it can make people feel safer by joining a patent pool...
-- Fixing the system will cause some lawyers to lose their jobs, lawmakers won't do anything that cause jobs loss.
Please think of the rich lawyers.
The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches Posted Apr 26, 2011 16:29 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
[Citation needed]
In multimedia patents, it's common for non-pool members to sue people. But not pool participants. E.g. There are now several cases against H.264 users, and there has been litigation against MP3 users in the past, but I'm not aware of any cases where the plaintiff was a pool member.
Recently in MPEG-LA v. Alcatel (a case where a pool member merged with a non-pool member and spun off the non-pool patents to a subsidiary to avoid the pool obligations) the courts even denied a company the ability to shield themselves from the pool obligations using incorporation stunts.
The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches Posted Apr 26, 2011 20:36 UTC (Tue) by rilder (subscriber, #59804) [Link]
I am not aware of multimedia specific patent pool. However, the recent Google Oracle Java case is good counter example. Both Google and Oracle have been part of OIN, but that did not stop Oracle from suing Google.
The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches Posted Apr 27, 2011 15:53 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] That's because OIN has a very narrow definition, preventing people from suing each other over the Linux kernel and a specified set of common packages (including gcc). Java, however, isn't on the OIN list, which is why Oracle could sue Google.
|
|||||||||||||