Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556605
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Here we go again
by gedmurphy on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:52 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

Another patent rant from Thom at PatentNews.com

Reply Score: -2

RE: Here we go again
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:56 in reply to "Here we go again"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

Another patent rant from Thom at PatentNews.com

Don't go judging on Thomklaw, you'll get voted down.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Here we go again
by Rehdon on Tue 26th Mar 2013 11:01 in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't go judging on Thomklaw, you'll get voted down.


The problem is, you're just trolling.

You're trolling because you pretend that all is well and good in patent law land, that poor, innocent Nokia is just asserting rights trampled by big, bad Google. As if it weren't well known by now that patents are indeed more a way of to stifle innovation and attack competitors than a way to protect your own innovation; that this specific behavior has already happened in exactly the same context, as remarked by Thom; and finally that poor, mismanaged Nokia might have other goals in mind, like trying to appear desirable in an acquisition because of their "intellectual property". Note how I left aside any "conspiracy theory".

You're trolling because you pretend not to know that F. Mueller is a well known paid shill, a pawn in a war against Google, and that he's been proven wrong many many times (not really that difficult a task when you side 100% with one of the parties, his anti-Google bias is so clear that I often wonder at the press picking up his statements).

You're trolling because you imply that Groklaw is, viceversa, a pawn in Google's service, while if there's a bias that's towards open standards and open source software; sure some of PJ's conclusions or arguments are not always convincing, but most of her work is based on (crowd-sourced) FACTS, if you have a bone to pick with her start showing where she's wrong with facts, ok?

So if you don't like being voted down, here's a simple solution: stop trolling.

Rehdon

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: Here we go again
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:22 in reply to "Here we go again"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Aren't you one of the ReactOS devs? Funny having someone re-implementing an existant OS from a patent-wielding company like Microsoft being so pro-software patent as you are.

It seems likely that ReactOS potentially infringes on Microsoft patents, at the very least FAT32 which Microsoft has threatened with, or does ReactOS not implement it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Here we go again
by gedmurphy on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:24 in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

I'm sure ReactOS tramples on all sorts of patents.
However ReactOS is a research project, it's not being sold and it's certainly not being used to compete with any patent holders.

I may not agree with some of the more crazy software patents issued by the USPO, but I would certainly try to respect them. Google knowingly infringes on patents, releases it as free software and then tries to control the internet with its stolen art.

Edited 2013-03-26 09:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Here we go again
by WereCatf on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:46 in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

at the very least FAT32 which Microsoft has threatened with, or does ReactOS not implement it?


As far as I remember, the FAT32 - patent was deemed invalid. Microsoft does hold a patent on FAT, but alas, I think there are work-arounds for that, too. I can't remember any details right now, but there was some discussion about this exact topic some while ago here on OSNews.

Reply Parent Score: 3