[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
steve
steve at 17q.com
Mon Sep 27 01:30:47 MST 2004
For the ones that want to play attorney instead of hiring a
REAL attorney here is some easy reading:
1. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman, Nos. 130, 131., SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Argued December 1, 2, 1897., March 21, 1898,
Decided
2. United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., No. 344., SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, Argued November 9, 10, 11, 1896., May 10, 1897, Decided
3. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, No. 862., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, Argued January 2, 3, 4, 1889., January 21, 1889, Decided
4. Johnson v. R.R. Co., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES , May 8, 1882,
Decided; OCTOBER, 1881 Term
5. Brown v. Huger, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES , February 14, 1859,
Decided; December 1858 Term
6. Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ,
January 18, 1853, Decided; December 1852 Term
7. Doe ex dem. Patterson v. Winn, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
February 14, 1831, Decided
8. Pennock v. Dialogue, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 26,
1829, Decided
9. Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co., 01-1193, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2002, Decided
10. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc.,
99-1558, 99-1559, 00-1006, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, March 7, 2001, Decided
11. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 00-1007, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 17, 2001, Decided
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Bill Seddon
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:34 AM
To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
Please, Steve (Steve at 17q.com), stop this. You are writing nonsense. In a
later post you assert that by publishing in the public domain a patent
holder loses their interest.
The very purpose of patent law is to allow an inventor the scope to make
their invention available in the public domain via direct sale or through
sub-licensing and to be able enforce it (or not). If you had been involved
in the drawing up of a patent, in the prosecution of an infringement action
or in the prosecution of a defence, you would realise that a patent
application has to include a very detailed description of an invention that
is then made available to the public *by the patent office*. Just go onto
the US Patent Office web site
(http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html) an dredge up some
arbitrary patents and read a few. It has to be detailed because, by law, it
should be possible for an expert in the field to use the description to
recreate the invention.
With software patents this release of detailed information into the public
domain is not obvious. But let's suppose that I invented a new type of
"device for the fastening of two or more bodies by means of a helical
thread" (a screw) then I would be making my invention public just by
producing and selling one. If your line of reasoning held, then there would
be no purpose to patents since they would offer no protection (which they
manifestly do). As another Steve pointed out, it is not uncommon for patent
holders to prosecute infringers many years after the infringer's products
have been released.
It's also worth noting that patent attorneys will try to craft a description
of a patent in the widest sense but so that it does not, in turn, infringe
upon any other patent. However this is difficult and the typical patent
must make "claims" that *together* constitute a novel invention.
It is a reality that if one patents makes claims (or, in the case of a
software patent, algorithm steps) A, B, C and D and you can get from A to D
without going through B and C or can get there via some other, non-obvious
route, then you have a claim for a different patent or a basis for a defence
against an infringement suit. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of.
However patent attorneys recognise this reality and will usually advise a
client to submit more than one patent: there should be sufficient patents to
cover all the alternative ways of getting from A to D.
Also, US case law requires that individuals or companies planning to use an
"alternative patent" strategy as a defence get legal opinion *before*
undertaking a course of action that will infringe (knowingly or not) upon an
existing patent. That is, talk to an attorney that specialises in
intellectual property law and get their opinion regarding a potential
infringement position in writing. From personal experience I know that this
costs ~$5,000 and more if the technique or innvention is described by
multiple patents.
My assumption is that some of the e-mails were written after the consumption
of more than one or two beers. But, please, if you cannot contribute
factually, you are helping no one.
Bill Seddon
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of steve
Sent: September 27, 2004 1:00 AM
To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
I do not believe that the usage of G729 that is unlicensed is illegal. It
is now been released in the general public domain. The law in the US
states that it is the duty of the trademark or patent owner to take action.
If that owner does not take action then they lose their interest.
Title 17 USC is quite clear on this subject. Digium is a very good company
and their president is some one that I have a great deal of respect for.
However, Digium under Title 17 can not protect those INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS granted to the owners. Digium is nothing more than an
agent for the owner and under Title 17 and Title 18 USC are not in a
position to protect anything.
For more information on this matter, I would suggest that you contact a
licensed attorney that is qualified in INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
By the way, I am an attorney.
Steve
Steve at 17q.com
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of joachim
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:32 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
I think there are 2 different persons posting about the g729.
The one showing how to use the intel codec didn't do anything illegal i
think ( although i have to admit that i didnt check it completely ), but
the one posting the binaries clearly is.
The one using the codec without paying the 200 or 300$ to intel and the
licencing fee to whoever owns the software patent clearly is, also in the
countries where there is no such thing as software patents.
Since using the intel code for anything but educational purposes is the
same as using pirated software.
Anyway, using a non licensed g729 is not just illegal, it also can get
digium in financial trouble, not because they make less profit ( i dont
think they can make a lot of profit on a 10$ license) but because they made
a big investment just to allow you and other users to use g729 in a legal
way, something you can't do without digium (unless you like bying some
thousands of licenses). - there is such a thing as a minimal purchase of X
licenses for g729.
If you think of using the codec because it might be faster than digiums, it
is not, i did some benchmarks on both of them.
Now lets just close this thread please.
Joachim
At 15:01 26/09/2004, you wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Milk" <jay at skimmilk.net>
>To: "'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'"
><asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:35 PM
>Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
>
>
>>You're free to express your
>>discontent about G.729 licensing issues, but you're not allowed to
>>advertise a way to *steal* the software. In other terms, you are
>>allowed to loudly and eloquently disagree with the price of goods, but
>>your disapproval does not give you the right to steal it -- or explain
>>to others how to steal and get away with it.
>
>I may agree with you from a moralistic point of view, but I'd like to
>understand how instructions makes the author of the instructions liable
>for any illegal activity committed by someone who used the instructions.
>
>Should Microsoft be liable because someone wrote a virus after reading a
>Visual Studio Macro How-To?
>
>Should a screwdriver manufacturer be liable for my house being robbed
>because their instructions tell you how much torque their screwdriver can
>sustain and the robber got the idea to jimmy my window open?
>
>If I give you a knife and the instructions on how to slaughter livestock
>in a Kosher manner then you go out and slaughter some humans, am I
>responsible for their murder?
>
>Is Intel just as at fault in this situation in your opinion?
>
>If someone explains how to use development code and someone chooses to
>commit an illegal act with it, why should the author be punished?
>
>As for the mode of transmission, was Microsoft responsible because the
>9/11 terrorists communicated via hotmail?
>
>J.Christian Hoffmeyer
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list