User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

RAND licensed patents with possible royalty/fee

RAND licensed patents with possible royalty/fee

Posted Sep 11, 2012 23:21 UTC (Tue) by tterribe (✭ supporter ✭, #66972)
In reply to: RAND licensed patents with possible royalty/fee by gmaxwell
Parent article: The Opus codec becomes an IETF standard

> If courts do eventually conclude that the disclosures are limiting...

Well, at least one court has already found that they are: http://www.mofo.com/pubs/xpqPublicationDetail.aspx?xpST=P...

My favorite part of that ruling being that this is true even if the disclosure rules are unclear, and even if they don't impose a duty to disclose at all (so long as the parties involved believe they do).

And if you look at the parties involved in that case, it may make their current "spray and pray" strategy a little more understandable, if not exactly appreciated.

But, yes, the best part about the IETF IPR policy is that, unlike the ISO or ITU policies used to produce video codecs, it requires disclosure of specific patent and/or application numbers up front, which prevents you from having to fight statements like, "All video codecs are patented."


(Log in to post comments)

RAND licensed patents with possible royalty/fee

Posted Sep 12, 2012 16:34 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Thank you. I hadn't looked at these cases. Time to go to another IPR conference, I guess.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds