> On 5/18/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You may have to install the w32codecs, which have questionable legality, >> but definitely work.
That wasn't enough for totem to recognize the file. I will try one of the other players later. > 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> Indeed, we can hope. > 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. It doesn't seem as clear-cut to me. An arrangement of transistors is patentable. A ROM is a complex arrangement of transistors. By implication you can patent the pattern stored in the ROM. (I'm not referring to a PROM. But a ROM, where the wiring actually encodes the data.) Many decades ago I heard a rumor that IBM implemented a an algorithm in transistors in order to patent it. At that point the patent was claimed to cover software implementations of the same thing. Historically I have been a chip designer. Did it for 3 decades. I've also done a moderate quantity of software. To me the distinction between the two is pretty hazy. One of the first tasks in defining a new ASIC is to decide how much of it is done in HW and how much in SW. The decision is based on cost, both silicon cost and cost of development. Is it reasonable that we can patent one implementation but not the other? Seems odd to me. > 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. I haven't read all the comments. There are a LOT! But some of them seem to touch on these same issues as I mention above. They look pretty hard to address. > 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. Bob Dylan said "When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose." (He probably borrowed it from somebody.) > 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 The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as its profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater. --- Frank Zappa -- Allen _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
