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

[Steve Kann]

This whole thing is way OT, but I'd just like to correct something 
that's been reinforced, incorrectly:

On Dec 8, 2004, at 12:33 AM, Nick Bachmann wrote:

> 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:
> [...]
>
>>  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.
>
>

I'm 99% sure this whole line of argument is incorrect.

You surely _can_ write and redistribute freely source code which 
implements a patented algorithm.  There's examples of this being done 
every day by big US companies, and smaller individuals.

Prime example:  The MPEG4IP Project:  An MPEG-4 player/encoder/etc, 
written primarily by Cisco, on sourceforge, in source code only.   
Covered by tons of patents.

Their opinion is that it is legal to distribute in source, but not 
legal to use or distribute binaries without licenses.

-SteveK