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 556642
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Here we go again
by gedmurphy on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:24 UTC 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[4]: Here we go again
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:46 in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Quite. I can't help fell that I'm in backwards world, where open source, royalty free code is "proprietary", trying to give it away is "control" and deliberately throwing a spanner in the works of standardisation is "collaboration".

Reply Parent Score: 6

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[4]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


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.


I can't understand why anyone would mod this bullsh*t up...

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues??? You make it sound like people doing OSS are just running around intentionally trampling on patents like gleeful children... The problem isn't anyone knowingly doing it - the problem is it is virtually impossible to find out if your code is infringing without spending huge amounts of $$$ on lawyers and staff to do patent clearances.

Sure, ReactOS is very likely infringing on some patents somewhere. But so it just about every piece of OSS in existence. So what? If the patent holder has a beef, they can take it up with the project and it will usually get worked out amiably. If your project is non-profit, for the most part there is no incentive at all for a patent holder to bother with it. Most of the OSS world ignores patents - and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

You imply that taking this approach is somehow "wrong". Why? The entire system is geared to protect financial gain. Most OSS projects are not in it for financial gain - therefore there is no justification for the expense of doing patent clearances. Patents are simply ignored - and unless there is genuine damage being done, why would anyone care? Do you really think that ReactOS is hurting Microsoft sales right now?

Reply Parent Score: 4