[asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.

[Paul]

First point to tackle in any case involving patent, copyright or
trademark infringement is whether or not the infringing party would have
been qualified to buy any usage rights at all. In a case where you
license the Intel source(read the terms, it's not really that "free"),
you would be applying for a license under some plan that includes
certain minimum payments. Even if you wrote new source from scratch you
would be in the same boat. Last time I looked at the plans, I didn't see
anything with low minimums. So even if you wrote code from scratch and
never used it on more than 6 channels, you might have done something
that normally requires a large upfront payment. Use $10k as an example.

In such a case owner of the patent might have an attorney initiate
contact. If you are willing to communicate they might allow you to pay
the minimum and be licensed. If you can't do that, they might offer a
settlement where you stop using the codec and pay them some lesser amount.

If the patent holder can easily prove the violation you might as well
try to deal with them and get things settled fast. If you sell or give
away the codec it is easier for them to dig up proof. If you have
unhappy employees that might be the way they hear about the violation in
the first place.

Important consideration: Bankruptcy law generally excludes debts created
by things like malicious or criminal acts.

Matthew Rubenstein wrote:

>	As far as I know, the g729 patent requires buying a license to operate
>any implementation of it, whether Digium's, Intel's, or any other.
>Digium is set up to collect royalties (perhaps at a favorable rate) as
>part of their license from the patent holder. I don't know about Intel
>or any other. Or what the mechanics are for enforcing the patent on
>someone who operates a codec without a license.
>
>
>On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 10:51 -0500, Al Bochter wrote:
>  
>
>>What about the free open source G729
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Al Bochter
>>Bochter Services
>>http://www.BochterServices.com/?t=Email
>>
>>
>>
>>Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>	I connect to a PSTN carrier over SIP which requires me to connect with
>>>a g729 codec. I'm using them for just robocalling: Asterisk server
>>>originates calls which play a prerecorded file. Can I pre-encode those
>>>stored files in g729 so they don't need to be encoded for each call? If
>>>so, do I need a g729 license for each call, or just a license for the
>>>preencoder? If the robocalls accept incoming DTMF, do I need g729
>>>licenses for those calls?
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 04:08 -0700,
>>>asterisk-users-request at lists.digium.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:47:39 +0800
>>>>From: Leo Ann Boon <leo at datvoiz.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.
>>>>To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
>>>>       <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>>>>Message-ID: <45A1DAFB.9070704 at datvoiz.com>
>>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>>
>>>>Xue Liangliang wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi, all
>>>>>
>>>>>I am a pabx vendor from Singapore. Recently we are going to
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>implement 
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>a failover solution for our customers using heartbeat, the asterisk 
>>>>>server can failover perfectly, however the g729 codec canot work, 
>>>>>because it is binded the mac address, we have bought two set of 
>>>>>licenses, can you provide us some workaround for this scenario?
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>It shouldn't be a problem if you're only doing IP takeover and have 
>>>>bound the licenses to each server separately.  If you're sharing the 
>>>>storage, then that could pose a problem.
>>>>
>>>>Leo
>>>>DatVoiz Singapore Pte Ltd 
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>