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 556660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?


Free from patents.

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Right, because Microsoft, Apple, and others never get sued over patents on closed source software.

Wait.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

He didn't say that.

More pointing out that this will continue to go on as long as these patents are around and it doesn't happen nearly as often in commercial software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Right, because Microsoft, Apple, and others never get sued over patents on closed source software.
"

They get sued by what is seen in the UI, not implementation code.

Edited 2013-03-26 14:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by anda_skoa on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually people get sued once they popular enough to be noticed. Regardless of whether it is open or proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.
"


What I meant is that with commercial software you don't get to see how something got implemented, as such it is hard to come with arguments to sue a given company.

Take Oracle vs Java case, Oracle got Android's source code and used it as starting point for their case.

Of course, even commercial software is not free of being sued based on the L&F of a given application or using unlicensed APIs or protocols.

With open source, you can get patent trolls going through the code and trying to find situations that they can leverage for patents. SCO's case for example.

They just need to raise the doubt that the software might break the patents. If the community cannot support a court case, they win.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

Yeah, like Opus. The best technical solution, open, but patent-encumbered, as Qualcomm and Huawei claimed rightly so.

Oh, wait.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

you do realize that being open does not mean free of patents right? There is no open source license that I know of that requires you to not patent anything you discovered.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Big picture...
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 21:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no open source license that I know of that requires you to not patent anything you discovered.

No, but there are ones that require you to license any patents you have in the code on a royalty free basis to anyone who receives the code under the terms of the license. The GPL for example (Section 11 specifically). The net effect is therefore the same.

Reply Parent Score: 2