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 556638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Here we go again
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:22 UTC 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[3]: Here we go again
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

and it's certainly not being used to compete with any patent holders.

Only because it is as of yet (and sadly likely always will be) too incomplete to pose as a viable alternative to Microsoft's own Windows. That is hardly through intent though, but rather due to lack of developers and resources. Or are you deliberately making sure it's not 'too compatible'?

Google knowingly infringes on patents

What patents would these be? I'd say Google would be crazy to knowingly infringe on patents given how much of a target they are.

Not going to court over patent claims is not the same as actually being guilty over patent infringement. As we've seen over and over again, patents are promiscuously granted by USPTO and their actual worth is up to a court to decide.

Court cases are long, expensive and also they seem sometimes to be hard to predict (unless they're in east Texas). So it's often a last resort as it's still a risk even if you are certain you are not infringing.

releases it as free software and then tries to control the internet with its stolen art.

How would they 'control the internet' with the royalty free vp8 (I'm assuming that is what you refer to with 'stolen art') ?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

it's not being sold

So, you knowingly infringe on patents and release it as free software?

"Just a research project" is as bogus an excuse as excuses go, and the affirmation that you do not compete... Well, by releasing it "free", you undercut the patent holders, who would have no problem arguing it in court. Bogus bogus bogus.

Google tries to control the web. Right. By making a better product, under licenses so permissive that they will never be able to "bait and switch" the users. While everybody else churns brain-dead patents to be sure to scare anybody who could come close to the same ideas, and lock wide portions of computing.

Edited 2013-03-26 10:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

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