On Tuesday 05 September 2006 19:47, Lance Hanlen wrote: > On 9/5/06, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:51, Lance Hanlen wrote: > > > I realized you're absolutely right to be suspicious of patents. > > > > As an additional argument: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5312696.stm > > This is extremely interesting! I have often pontificated that any > algorithm can be "improved" past its patented version. If these guys > really did find a way to beat the MP3 standard, and they can win, all > our patent worries are over! We just keep improving things :D
Well, that's one of the points of the patent system. The problem is that many patents (probably including the MP3 ones) start with very broad claims that will never hold up anyway (e.g. "apparatus for representing data representing audio in a compact manner") and then narrow it down to more specific claims about how they do that. The patent office accepts these patents, and anyone infringing them by doing more or less the same in a different manner will first have to go to court to get a judge to dismiss the broader claims, possibly uphold the narrower claims, and then decide whether the new implementation infringes upon the claims that are left. That takes a lot of time and money... Lourens
pgpxwBIsQ0OhA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
