Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:36:02 +0200 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [offtopic] Re: Patented algorithms in kernel |
| |
Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > All I'm trying to tell Pavel is not to be so blatant about making > statements on the list about taking prople's patents. How would Bob > Young feel if he spent $$$$$ on securing patents only to discover > folks telling him "HA HA HA try and get us, patent holder". It sends > a bad message, and leaves a trail of court exhibits in the mailing > list if one of these companies ever wanted to get agressive with us, > that's all I'm saying.
Exhibit #1: We believe our modems already come with implied permission to use them! We're simply using modems to do what the modem's box says the modem can do...
Exhibit #2: What patents? My modem doesn't come with a list of patent numbers. It's impossible for us to make an *explicit* attempt to avoid infringing these hypothetical patents since none of us has any idea which patents to avoid... For all I know, their existence is an urban myth.
Not even the ITU provides the necessary information. Not one patent is cited in the ITU-T standards (though there is a general warning that implementors "may" need to be wary in some countries). Nobody can deny our "best effort" at implementing a modem is simply to follow the ITU-T *international* standards, inventing our own algorithms in the process. (The standards don't describe much in the way of algorithms).
You know, there's a fair chance that given our independent inventions, we'll come up with methods outside the scope of existing patents anyway.
And that's Exhibit #3: We're simply implementing documented international standards, using our own invented techniques to fill in the holes left unspecified by the standards. (And there are a lot of those holes).
We don't want to tread on existing patents and we'd happily avoid sensitive areas if we knew which ones to avoid.
If that turns out to be as broad as "avoid anything above 14k in the US and Japan" then the appropriate action is to not distribute the software in the US and Japen, or to disable all features above 14k for US and Japan distributions -- plus a warning for those who decide to import the software themselves. But so far, the need for this hasn't been confirmed.
> The Judge in our case ruled the search was proper and refused to allow > us to collect the bond, even though NOT ONE LINE OF NOVELL SOURCE CODE > OR DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN OUR POSSESSION.
Harsh. You just pointed out that these things happen despite total innocence. (That's us :-) Nothing we can do, except keep quiet and hope nobody notices.
-- Jamie
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |