[Asterisk-Dev] writing a GPL G.729?

[Nick Bachmann]

Jayson Vantuyl wrote:

>  On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 03:10:41PM -0600, Eric Wieling aka ManxPower
>  wrote:
>
> > I have NEVER seen ANY statement by a patent lawyer that the G729
> > patents are not valid in some parts of the world. All I've seen is
> > non-lawyers saying that.
>
>  I have NEVER seen ANY statement by your local prosecutor that you are
>  not a convicted criminal.

That stands to reason.  I (and presumably you, as well) have absolutely 
no idea where Eric lives and really don't pay attention to his 
prosecutor/DA's statements.  As IT professionals (again, I'm making some 
liberal presumptions here), we should pay some attention to patent law 
and we have a higher-than-average likelihood of being working with 
patent lawyers. 

>  What does the above statement prove?

That you have not seen my Eric's prosecutor say he was a criminal.  It 
also suggests you're in the habit of making faulty analogies, but that's 
more my personal observation than a proof.

>  HOWEVER, I don't need to talk to a patent lawyer to know that a
>  patent isn't valid outside of its jurisdiction. That's the only
>  question you need to ask. IF there is no patent in Norway, then he
>  should begin a GPL'd project. In fact, he should pursue it avidly,
>  to generate prior art if anything.

As Steven already pointed out, the ITU treaty covers this.  Also 
remember that the PCT makes getting worldwide patents very easy.

>  I suspect that the G.729 couldn't be patented in Norway now, as there
>  is extensive prior art (even if they can prove they developed it,
>  they can't wait forever to patent it there).

This is true (the length of time in the US is one year from the date of 
any form of publication, but this varies by country), but I highly doubt 
the owners of the various G.729 IP only filed for US patent protection.  
After all, these patents are owned by MNCs who do business in just about 
every country with a free-enough market.

>  Also, there is a point to be made too, that distributing the source
>  for a patented invention may not be illegal.

You can't practically license it it under the GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. 
We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will 
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program 
proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must 
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
[...]
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain 
countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original 
copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an 
explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, 
so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus 
excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if 
written in the body of this License.

>  IF that is the case, I
>  would certainly consider starting a repository of the source of
>  banned (i.e. patented) technologies.

I hope Albtelecom can offer reliable bandwidth.

>  Of course, it may be difficult
>  for the developers to claim they're not violating the patent if it's
>  developed in the wrong country. However, there could be promise
>  there.

At least in the US, according to 35 USC 271:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without 
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, 
within the United States or imports into the United States any patented 
invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports 
into the United States a component of a patented machine ... shall be 
liable as a contributory infringer.

So, you'll have to hire some Albanian programmers.

>  Oh, and before anyone complains about developing and archiving
>  patented software outside the patent's jurisdiction...remember, those
>  are the rules of the game. Don't complain just because you don't
>  think it's "fair" when we play by them...

You should remember why patents were devised: so people could spend 
money to develop novel stuff knowing they had exclusive rights for a 
while.  Ultimately, patents provide incentive for R&D, especially for 
smaller companies that can't afford to put a few PhDs on a project 
without some assurance the company will be compensated for their time.

Nick