| |||||||||||||
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?)you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?)Posted Sep 5, 2002 5:39 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: A different use of software patents I am not a lawyer, but I've had many discussions with patent lawyers, and I seem to remember being told that if you use a patent to obstruct a technology by refusing to license or use it, then you can forfeit rights to it. Please check into this before devoting a lot of energy to the subject.
(Log in to post comments)
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 12:40 UTC (Thu) by tres (guest, #352) [Link] First: GO LUCKY!!!!!!!Second: I hate to site a source of entertainment but I once saw a Steven Segall Movie, On Deadly Ground, that had a short section at the end of it that discussed things like tires that could last for 1,000 miles, radial automobile engines that could get 70 miles to the gallon, and many other patented things that were controlled by mega-corps (usually the oil industry) for the purpose of preventing them from entering the market. These statements are from memory only so I may be wrong on the details. It seems that either you are in error, or some Mega-corps are blatantly disregarding the law. Perhaps no one has chosen to challenge their patents for fear that their pockets aren't deep enough Regards,
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 16:44 UTC (Thu) by ZogKarndon (guest, #3566) [Link] Uh - all those things are urban legends. Patents expire. The whole point of the patent system is to publicize inventions; in order to get a patent, you have to describe exactly how to create your object. If you had a million-mile tire (if I had a tire that only lasted 1000 miles, I'd be pissed as hell - any decent tire lasts at least 25,000 miles, and should last 50,000), if you were to patent it, you would have to describe how to make one. Then, in 17 years, anyone could make it. If those devices existed, they would be on the market, since these things have been rumored to exist for well over 50 years.
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 16:22 UTC (Thu) by bluetea (guest, #1108) [Link] I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems that even if it is you could always come up with licensing terms that make it unattractive without flatly refusing to license it.
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 6, 2002 1:03 UTC (Fri) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link] For example, he could require that all code that uses his patent be licensed under the GPL. <grin>
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 7, 2002 0:03 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] So why in the hell as microsoft asked for a licence that "makes corporate sense" over patents they eventualy own on vertex shaders. Is that corporate sense meaning they will refuse to licence it for use in open source projects like the openGL 2. The openGL ARB includes all the major hardware graphics makers and they surely are willing to pay microsoft, as a whole, the sum of the amounts it is asking individualy.!!!THE BIG QUESTION: - CAN MICROSOFT REFUSE TO LICENCE PATENTS IT OWNES, TO OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS????? IF THE ANSWER IS NO: - IS THERE A WAY TO SUE MICROSOFT, SO THEY FORFEIT RIGHTS ON VERTEX SHADERS?????
|
|||||||||||||