Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Apr 2011 11:48 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Permalink for comment 471090
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
In this case (which was very weak and should have been rejected) the patent holder tried to negotiate with the company (Google) who were distributing the product which was claimed to infringe.
In the case of a company submitting a patent to MPEG LA pool for WebM and MPEG LA going after some user of WebM at no stage did the patent hold try to negotiate with Google (who are the owners and distributors of WebM).
Annti-trust law is meant to prevent companies/organisations holding a dominant position from seeking to create or maintain a monopoly by interfering with competing products. This law would most assuredly apply in this situation to MPEG LA.
MPEG LA have actually in the past sought an exemption from anti-trust law, and they were given very short shrift by the administration.
Edited 2011-04-26 23:46 UTC