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

[Daniel Pocock]

Steve is absolutely right on both issues:
- this thread is getting very off topic
- patented technologies can be distributed in source form - otherwise, 
how could Intel distribute the G.729 and G.723.1 implementations that I 
have downloaded and patched for use with Asterisk?

Intel distributes both of these free, in source form, and under a 'free 
open source' license with the intention that the end user will negotiate 
their own patent license if the code gets compiled into binary form.

Steve Kann wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev