andre999 wrote: > We're talking about codecs, essentially the decoders which are used to > read encoded files. > If the patent claims are valid/enforceable (and most aren't), it is up > to the patent holder to decide if it is in their interest to enforce the > patent claims. > Since they will normally attempt to collect royalties from those using > the encoders to generate encoded content, it is in their interest avoid > enforcing claims against users of decoders, as the more such decoders > are used, the more the demand for the corresponding encoders, and thus > the more royalties they will collect. So it seems to me entirely > logical to await notification that they indeed intend to collect > royalties for these codec decoders. > However I do agree that we should put encoders that seem to be covered > by valid patents in some countries in "tainted".
If we really want a hard and fast rule, I agree that this makes the most sense.