On 5/18/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You may have to install the w32codecs, which have questionable legality, but definitely work.
The exciting thing in this area is that the U.S. Supreme Court recently hinted that it may find software patents unconstitutional in a later decision. See my post here for an overview, <http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070430121005424&title=Unfortunately%2C%20they%20didn%27t%20resolve%20the%20overall%20patent%20issue&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=564772#c565148> The Microsoft v. AT&T case did not directly pose that issue, so the Supremes seem to be fishing for someone to bring them a case that does. During oral argument of that case, several justices pointed out that the Supreme Court had never held that software can lawfully be patented, and both Microsoft and AT&T lawyers agreed that was correct. That is really significant because the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals -- which has exclusive jurisdiction in patent cases -- has built its house of software patent legality on the premise that the Supreme Court did authorize software patents in a 1981 case decision, Diamond v. Diehr, <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/450/175.html>. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the experiment with shunting all patent decisions through a single court of appeals has failed badly. The Federal Circuit is a rogue court whose software patent doctrine directly contradicts at least a half-dozen Supreme Court decisions. Personally, I believe the objective bright line between the patentable and non-patentable in computing can only be drawn between information on the one hand and hardware and carriers (energy) on the other, i.e., between the physical world and the metaphysical world. Anything else is non-workable subjective quicksand. That was principle we used in our work creating the Groklaw Definition of software patentability. <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050531195311724#c322276>. Someday we need to clean up the buglets noted in the comments on that page, but I think we did manage to identify where the bright line has to be. The bottom line I think is that people might use the w32codecs in the good faith belief that software patents are unconstitutional, but only if they are willing to accept the risk of having to litigate that issue clear through the U.S. Supreme Court and accept the additional risk of losing. I believe those risks are vanishingly small for individual users, but do exist. On the other hand, I resigned from the Bar when I retired from the practice of law and can no longer lawfully give legal advice. So the above is only an exercise of my right of Free Speech to express my personal opinion on any issue and should not be considered as legal advice. If you need legal advice on this issue, you should consult a paid-up member in good standing of the lawyers' union, which has managed to get a law passed giving them an exclusive monopoly, a law itself of dubious constitutionality because of its clash with the guarantees of Free Spech and Association as well as the Commerce Clause. I stopped paying my dues and am no longer a member, and have better things to do than duke it out with Bar Association thugs. :-) Best regards, Marbux _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
