[asterisk-users] Software patents (was G723 on asterisk 1.4.1)

[Steve Underwood]

Atis Lezdins wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Steve Underwood <steveu at coppice.org> wrote:
>   
>> Atis Lezdins wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Andrew Joakimsen <joakimsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Tilghman Lesher
>>>> <tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> It is completely illegal in any country that recognizes patents.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> You mean countries that recognize software patents, right?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> As resident of country where the file is hosted - yes we don't have
>>> software patents, they have been proposed to EU and reject few years
>>> ago. So by law - software is algorithm and can't be patented.
>>>
>>> In local laws we even are allowed to reverse-engineer software for
>>> needs of compatibility and interoperability. So, writing code for
>>> commercial codec and using it for interoperability with hardware
>>> devices (you purchased) is allowed by law.
>>>
>>> Damn, we even have a law that don't allow bittorrent trackers, as
>>> bittorrent file is considered breaking copyright law.. Ironic :p
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> Please do NOT discuss ways to use unlicensed codecs on this list or any other forum
>>>>> provided by Digium.  This has been discussed multiple times as to why not,
>>>>> and I don't feel like rehashing the argument again.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I did not know you were a moderator on this list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> contributory infringement
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> What if  I make a page that explains the patent issues and then
>>>> provide a link to http://asterisk.hosting.lv/ from that site and only
>>>> provide people on this list a link to my site? What if I provide a
>>>> link to the Google search for "asterisk g723?" Where do we draw the
>>>> line? If that site is so illegal, why hasn't it been taken down? Why
>>>> hasn't the patent holder at the very least provided Google with a DMCA
>>>> notice?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I guess because it's completely legal here, and there's a disclaimer on page:
>>> DISCLAIMER: You might have to pay royalty fees to the G.729/723.1
>>> patent holders for using their algorithm.
>>>
>>> It all depends on country and laws.
>>>
>>>       
>> There are a few algorithmic speedup patents around, what can accelerate
>> codecs like G.729 and G.723.1, and which are purely software patents.
>> Most of the relevant patents are *not* software patents. Don't confuse
>> "software patent" with "something running on a computer".
>>
>> Patents applicable to speech coding are perfectly valid in the vast
>> majority of countries. Certainly in all the EU countries.
>>     
>
> It seems that this have been discussed numerous times.
>
> http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2004-October/058136.html
>
> Does anybody have some more legal experence with this? Any courts?
> Negotiations? NDA? :p
>
> >From what i've found, there's an EU directive regarding software
> patents, but it's full of legal terms. Maybe anyone can comment?
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/commonpositions/2005/pdf/c6-0058-05_en.pdf
>   
You're back to talking about software patents again. People love to do 
that, in the same spirit that schoolboys cross their fingers in the hope 
it absolves them from something. Would you care to look through the 
patents which the G.729 patent pool licences, and try to find any 
software patents amongst them?

Regards,
Steve