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

Fri Dec 10 20:30:08 MST 2004

source code that implements G.729 does not violate the patent, running 
compiled source code does.

f.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Jayson Vantuyl wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:33:35AM -0500, Nick Bachmann wrote:
>> Jayson Vantuyl 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.
> Interesting.  The above statement was meant to illustrate that the
> statement it was responding to was actually a faulty analogy (whew!).  I
> find it ironic that it should be an indicator that I often MAKE faulty
> analogies (i.e. disagreeing with some of my later points does not make
> this a faulty analogy).  On the contrary, the above statement should
> indicate that I am in the habit of HEARING faulty analogies.  There's a
> world of difference here.
>
>>> 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.
> Treaties do not make local law (or law enforcement).  Again, I question
> whether there is enough in the treaty, in the laws that may have
> resulted from it, and enough precedents in the Norwegian legal system to
> support a legal attack on it.
>
>> 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.
> That would be interesting to research--especially since it has been
> determined elsewhere in this thread that there are multiple patents in
> question.
>
>> You can't practically license it it under the GPL:
> Beyond practicality, it appears you may not be ABLE to license it under
> the GPL.  There is a clause that states that any patent licenses must be
> transmitted as well.  Since that would not apply, I think that
> distribution under the GPL may not be possible!  Whether this is
> intentional, RMS only knows.
>
>> 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.
> Is this necessary?  Wouldn't redistribution already be illegal in those
> jurisdictions?  Would the distributor be at fault for the illegal
> distribution since his license didn't cover it?  I'll have to ask a
> patent attorney what kind of liability having that kind of license would
> give.  The sort of "Should an encryption program's license exclude
> France?  Would the French sue me?  Would they have a case?" line of
> questions.
>
>> I hope Albtelecom can offer reliable bandwidth.
> IF publishing the source (not necessarily the binary) under the GPL is
> legal in, say, the US.  What legal grounds does anyone have to prevent
> it.  If I'm not distributing binaries, they would have to prove I was
> using it, no?  If it were developed somewhere it was at least legal to
> develop it, would there be legal grounds to sue, say, SourceForge for
> holding the source?
>
>> 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.
> Would that apply to the source?  Somebody had said distributing SOURCE
> to a software patent wouldn't be a crime.  Is that wrong?
>
>>> 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...
> The above was a tongue-in-cheek response to a message elsewhere in the
> thread.
>
>> 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.
> Great.  I also recall that the Gatling Gun was invented by a doctor to
> make war SO horrifying that no one would use them.
>
> What matters is what they are USED for--not what they were meant to do.
>
> I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that patents enable a small
> business to do anything anymore.  If someone with more legal resources
> and more patents wants your patent, they will bankrupt you.
>
> Anyone remember Aureal sound cards?  They were great cards.  They blew
> Creative Labs out of the water.  Do you know what happened to them?
> They were sued by Creative for violating a patent they didn't violate.
> They won the suit!  Then the legal debt caused them to file bankrupcy.
> Oh, and then Creative Labs bought them--and their patents!
>
> Whether this is a failure of patents in particular or the legal system
> as a whole, I cannot say.  One thing is for sure, the above argument
> won't mean much to the people who really invent things.
>
> Seriously.  Where are the companies that bankrolled the Linux OS?  What
> about just a piece like ReiserFS?  What about the Python language?  What
> about Asterisk?  Do those companies have patents on the components of
> these programs?  I'm hard pressed to find any.  The fact is that the few
> patented technologies you find in these programs are defensive and have
> hardly ever been used.  And most of those developments weren't owned by
> the companies that bankrolled it (when companies bankrolled it).  The
> software was the benefit.
>
> Certainly the authors care less about patents and more about the
> copyright.  These people don't patent things to make sure no one else
> can use them, then litigate.  They do care about people shamelessly
> stealing their work.
>
> It's not that hard to see that patents DO NOT DO ANYTHING USEFUL for the
> bulk of inventors today.  That is why they have no actual moral value
> but are instead a legal weapon for rich corporations that have very
> little to do with actual innovation.
>
> -- 
> Jayson Vantuyl
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>