Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
--- Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the patent says, it matters how the court *interprets* that law and patent. Case law for patents is considered particularly random. Therefore, no one can -- even in theory -- offer a guarantee. Something which should be a very string signal to someone in the courts and in Congress that the current interpretations of the current patent laws have allowed breach of the Constitutionally provided checks and balances. What they can offer is a risk assessment, like insurance companies use to set rates. Insurance companies, being at the center of the breach, should be considered traitors to the Constitution (or serious chumps). As an analogy, Apple, Nokia, et. al. won't promise that the bridge is safe to cross, but they will tell you that they (who are much heavier) have already crossed it. Hubris? Self-delusion? Evidence that they are planning an ambush? A single hobbyist who can't afford to hire a lawyer is relatively safe, because he or she is judgment-proof -- even if the patent trolls win, they won't get their money back. Unless the troll is Microsoft or other large OS vendor (probably operating by wire through some relatively unknown) looking to squelch the ability of the little guys to act independently. No, I am not being paranoid. (Wherefore neoSCO?) A large corporation may be worth shaking down, because they'll often settle even stupid cases just to avoid the costs and risks of legal fees. Therefore, if BigCorp has already used the technology widely enough to be expensive, *and* has not been sued, it at least suggests that no trolls have any relevant patents. A conclusion contrary to the evidence of court activity in progress (some of which has been mentioned in other threads), if you don't mind my saying so. joudanzuki Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
I apologize in advance if this question has already been broached. In what I have seen of several of the ogg threads, I seem to see the question being danced around, but not directly addressed. Part one of the question: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? Are they willing to make binding agreements to go to bat for _us_ in court? Part two of the question: Where does anyone expect to find any software technology that can't be submarined (post-facto, really) sufficiently to incur more court costs than most of us independent (read, one-man semi-hobbiests, trying to make useful tools for problems the big guys are too big to see) developers can afford to even hire a lawyer to officially say, I'm sorry for even daring to think for myself and I promise never to do it again! Yeah, bring up that stupid EOLAS business. While I appreciate the greatest software polluters in the industry getting a bite taking out of their bottom line, I don't appreciate that it validates (not legally, but in practice) the practice of using the absurdity of patenting literature^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software as a weapon for waging wars in the marketplace. It validates the devil's game when you use the devil's tools. You look closely at what happened in EOLAS (and what is happening on several other fronts) and it is simple. Somebody gets a patent vaguely related to something someone they want to attack is doing and sics the lawyers on them, and the lawyers try to figure out a way to be enough nuisance to induce a settlement. We all know that is what happens. We all know there is no way to defend against it. No patent search can be sufficient. So Nokia and Apple and whoever else are simply trying to push the standard to the solution they have agreed to in their back-room deals, and they want w3c to support their back-room deals. Thus my question: Who fights for the little guys if the big guys are warning^H^H^H^H^H^H^H telling us that the little guys' solution is going to get attacked? What good does it do to use what they tell us they want? We know they are planning attacks anyway, just because they've done this. Long rant. I hope I'm made some sense. joudanzuki Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
If by Corporate Blessed, you mean codecs like H.264, there's a very simple answer to that. Nokia and Apple pay licensing fees to a company called MPEG LA. MPEG LA indemnifies Nokia and Apple from patent lawsuits over the use of MPEG-related codecs. Should anyone come forward with a new patent, the MPEG LA will litigate the matter and/or come to an agreement with the patent holder to license the patent on behalf of their member companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing Thanks, Jerason Banes On Dec 12, 2007 7:15 AM, Joseph Daniel Zukiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? Are they willing to make binding agreements to go to bat for _us_ in court?
