Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Feb 2011 16:00 UTC, submitted by aa
Thread beginning with comment 462260
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"So this basically means that they don't currently have any patents, right? They're basically asking everyone out there to see if anyone else does.
Yes. Which makes me wonder how this will play out in a court of law before the judge (and jury if applicable in this kind of cases). I know that if I were a member of that jury, knowing of this "call for patents in order to sue" would be enough for me to disregard the complaints even if they would have otherwise been perfectly legitimate. But I also know the judiciary system doesn't allow that kind of superficial assessment or reaction from a juror... does it? "
I think that there is a law that applies almost perfectly to what MPEG LA seem to be trying to do here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
Google does have a number of perfectly legal business relationships with this set of companies and organisations:
http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
Google's relationship with those companies is based on the WebM technology being offered perpetually to everyone worldwide, no charge, irrevocably and royalty free.
It seems to be a slam dunk case that MPEG LA are trying to interfere with those relationships.




Member since:
2010-03-30
Yes. Which makes me wonder how this will play out in a court of law before the judge (and jury if applicable in this kind of cases). I know that if I were a member of that jury, knowing of this "call for patents in order to sue" would be enough for me to disregard the complaints even if they would have otherwise been perfectly legitimate. But I also know the judiciary system doesn't allow that kind of superficial assessment or reaction from a juror... does it?