Patent challenge looming for open-source codecs?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henke54 May 01, 2010 8:46 AM EDT |
quote From Tom Krazit :
Quoting: If authentic, a new e-mail from Steve Jobs indicates that Apple and Microsoft--of all bedfellows--could be preparing to challenge the validity of open-source video codecs.http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20003895-265.html Quoting:From: Steve Jobs To: Hugo Roy Subject: Re: Open letter to Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:21:17 -0700http://hugoroy.eu/jobs-os.php |
| bigg May 01, 2010 9:06 AM EDT |
Well this really makes me upset. I was going to wait to make an announcement, but I'll just go ahead and do it right now. Apple's iPad infringes on several of my patents. I want existing iPad owners to send me a check for $700 or I'll sue them. I think it's time Apple's customers consider that an iPad costs more than just what they pay for it in the store - they also have to consider the costs of my IP, which to this point they have not been paying. |
| TxtEdMacs May 01, 2010 9:23 AM EDT |
bigg, That's Extortion ... but I am amenable to a small payment for the unauthorized use of my IP. I been quiet lately, because this is a more lucrative endeavor where I just hire some muscle to break a few bones. Much more dignified than begging for pennies from the big corporative malefactors. I tried so mightily to entice them* to become my clients and I was scorned. Moreover, this pays better and I do get respect. YBT * Afore mentioned gangster class. |
| bigg May 01, 2010 10:08 AM EDT |
> That's Extortion I prefer to be called a parasite. Your terminology might lead someone to believe I'm doing something illegal. I'm just a regular Joe who got tired of working and decided to make the big bucks by making vague threats that I might sue for unspecified reasons. |
| gus3 May 01, 2010 11:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:I want existing iPad owners to send me a checkThe owners aren't the infringers, so they can tell you to "go whiz up a rope." Apple would be the infringers. Oh, wait a minute. Apple's license agreement says Apple can still tell the putative "owners" what they can and can't do with their iBalls. So I guess Apple does own the fanbois' iBalls after all. |
| azerthoth May 01, 2010 11:35 AM EDT |
Scopple |
| dinotrac May 01, 2010 11:55 AM EDT |
gus3 -- Wrong, wrong, wrong. End users who use infringing technology are every bit as liable as the manufacturer who built it in. Their liability is smaller because the own but one infringing copy (or a couple, as the case may be). Their exposure is nearly nothing because of the practicalities of legal action, but... they are still violating the law. |
| TxtEdMacs May 01, 2010 11:58 AM EDT |
az,Quoting:Scopple [???]Do you happen to means scruples* or some disease I had not heard of previously**? Txt. * A set of ethical standards to guide one's actions. ** For example, some Australian Talk with obscure meanings and context. |
| azerthoth May 01, 2010 12:00 PM EDT |
SCO/Apple ... Scopple |
| dinotrac May 01, 2010 12:57 PM EDT |
azerthoth -- Sounds a lot like a southern breakfast dish of which I am particularly fond. Scrapple is congealed pig scraps, corn meal and spices. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like a southern breakfast dish of which I am particularly fond. |
| azerthoth May 01, 2010 1:18 PM EDT |
Tried to make scrapple work ... there just wasnt a R handy :) |
| tuxchick May 01, 2010 1:20 PM EDT |
Dino, the more you explain the law the more idiotic and corporate-owned it sounds. (I'm not complaining that you explain this stuff, I'm glad you do.) The idea that anyone who purchases a product should be liable in anyway for what the manufacturer did is ridiculous. I really want to use cuss words, but I respect the LXer TOS. LXer has earned respect, unlike US laws. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2010 1:29 PM EDT |
TC -- yup. With regard to liability, the problem comes from the fact that the consumer is not liable for what the manufacturer did, but that use of protected materials also constitutes an infringement. So... Buy the item, no problem. Use the item -- oops! |
| gus3 May 01, 2010 1:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:End users who use infringing technology are every bit as liable as the manufacturer who bill sit in.What does "bill sit in" mean? Or is that "builds it in"? Quoting:Buy the item, no problem. Use the item -- oops!So wouldn't the manufacturer be liable for selling a device under false pretenses, that using said device according to the instructions would be legal? |
| Bob_Robertson May 01, 2010 3:29 PM EDT |
Can't call it "blackmail" any more, too many people would think one is making racial references. Like being niggardly. TC, > the more you explain the law the more idiotic and corporate-owned it sounds. I couldn't agree with you more. Every time I hear someone proclaim about how "the law" is supposed to restrain business excesses, I have to laugh. Who do they think WROTE the laws in the first place? Congresscrawlers don't even read them, much less write them. Anarchy is looking better and better. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2010 3:38 PM EDT |
gus3 - Nope. I could see some potential there, but am pretty sure it would fail on intent. Presuming that warranties of suitability for purpose are not disclaimed, there might be something to be had in that direction. |
| hkwint May 02, 2010 11:32 AM EDT |
Dino, AFAIK that only goes for US law, isn't it? I was at the 'talk' about RepRap where Mr. Bowyer was speaking about differences between UK and US law. As far as I understood, under UK law (and probably most European laws) it's permitted to take a patent, and print the stuff right at your own home using a RepRap. |
| dinotrac May 02, 2010 4:18 PM EDT |
Don't know Hans. By and large, EU patent law is much more similar to than different from US law. I could be wrong, but I believe that it is an infringement to make a patented device without the permission of the patent holder. There are some very narrow exceptions to the rule, and a practical reality in the sense that "Gee, who's going to Know?" and people who don't know don't sue. |
| Sander_Marechal May 02, 2010 6:09 PM EDT |
@dino: Isn't it that you can make a patented device, you just can't use it? |
| Bob_Robertson May 02, 2010 7:00 PM EDT |
Don't forget this copyright/patent/trademark treaty in the works is going to homogenize things even more, internationally speaking. |
| dinotrac May 02, 2010 7:39 PM EDT |
Sander -- Not my understanding. The split that I mentioned before for user liability -- the manufacturing and distribution liability was still there, but owned by the device manufacturer (which would be you if you made it). Use liability was still there for the user once you turn it on. |
| hkwint May 04, 2010 10:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Don't forget this copyright/patent/trademark treaty in the works People are upset about it to such a degree, I'm not sure if it's going to make it. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2010 8:54 AM EDT |
> People are upset about it to such a degree, I'm not sure if it's going to make it. My "fear", if I can call it that, is that it will get passed, in deliberate obscurity. Like a lot of laws, now that I think about it. The US Congress has a very nasty thing called a "voice vote". This is where they wait until the middle of the night when there are only a few representatives left in the chamber, and when the last of the opposition just went to the bathroom, then they call a "voice vote" and since there is no opposition the law passes. And on a voice vote there is no recording of who voted which way, so everyone is off the hook. Plausible deniability. Sausage and legislation. But at least sausage tastes good. |
| hkwint May 05, 2010 12:00 PM EDT |
Well, if ACTA is meant to harmonize stuff, it cannot be US only. People in the Europarliament (those who are ought to represent us, the European citizens) have shown to care about this issue. So have people in the Dutch 'parliament', and probably abroad too. I'm not sure about other important countries such as Japan, Australia and Korea, but at least it is getting some attention. Also something interesting, was a book called 'The Electric Jeans' by some economist in my country. It's about the nonsense of the current patent system. Articles or books about that issue are nothing new, at least not on technology websites. However, the fact that some economist (who gives his opinion on Dutch Tele everyday) cares and talks on radio about it, shows even people 'outside the technology sector' start to care. Generally, at least in my country, engineers and 'technologists' (the tech savvy) are severely underrepresented in the parliament. The parliament is filled with economists, criminologists, juridical types, political scientists and so on (the same goes for the EuroParliament). So if there's a discussion on tech-websites and tech-papers about patents, they are not even aware. However, if economists start thinking about the issue, things might finally change. Somewhere in the next two decades... In the meantime, BSA is lobbying to make what the Euro Patent Office is doing have a 'legal foundation' instead of being based on quicksand. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2010 12:52 PM EDT |
> However, if economists start thinking about the issue... Much to Caitlyn's chagrin, I will point you over to Mises.org And a site I found recently, http://www.againstmonopoly.com/ Two places filled with economists pointing out the gross problems with "Intellectual Monopoly". From what I've seen of the various objections to ACTA, they seem to be more of "that's not how we want to do it" rather than "let's not do that at all". |
| hkwint May 05, 2010 2:59 PM EDT |
Well, what I'm basically saying is that it is important for the discussion to move 'beyond Mises.org' into 'mainstream press'. Indeed, apart from some 'websites focused on technical issues' there are more websites, also those related to economics, who have written about the issue before, but I think what I heard on the radio today marked an important milestone in moving it to 'mass media'. Mises.org just isn't mass media today I'm afraid. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2010 3:43 PM EDT |
Pretty much the only time the mass media will give actual deregulation any air time is when they have their pet "radicals" on, such as Peter Schiff or Ron Paul. That British delegate to the European parliament, whose name I can't remember right now, got some heavy air time last year, but nothing since. I don't believe that the "mainstream media" is unbiased on this issue. They don't understand that their profits don't come from copyright, but from being "first to market". |
| number6x May 05, 2010 5:55 PM EDT |
@TXT: "I am amenable to a small payment for the unauthorized use of my IP." When I can figure out how to pay for the unauthorized use of your IP, I will do so. However If I pay, then the use is authorized. I want to pay for unauthorized use. Every time I try to pay, the use changes to authorized use and I don't get what I paid for! This leads to an incredibly high level of dissatisfaction. Because of my high level of dissatisfaction, I will discontinue all use. |
| TxtEdMacs May 05, 2010 6:42 PM EDT |
#6, That's mighty bigg of you ... I think, but let me reread your comment again a few times more before I commit to a binding deal. YBT P.S. I must admit to some confusion, since from all appearances this is your first post on this thread. You wouldn't stoop to pulling my leg would you? |
| hkwint May 07, 2010 1:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:What does "bill sit in" mean? Hey, I missed that one. To me, it sounds like a garbled spelling of the Oxford Dictionary approved "Bullshitting". Let's try: Quoting:End users who use infringing technology are every bit as liable as the manufacturer who bullshitting Makes more sense to me! |
| TxtEdMacs May 07, 2010 7:53 AM EDT |
Hans,Quoting:Quoted: End users who use infringing technology are every bit as liable as the manufacturer who bullshittingIf I ever were or become a user of Facebook, I would be one of your very major fans. What more can I say? YBT |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!