Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion. | Date | Tue, 28 May 2002 14:03:57 -0400 | From | James Bottomley <> |
| |
zippel@linux-m68k.org said: > Uh, that's quite a lot of lawyer language, something like this is > already difficult to understand in the native language. Could you > point me to the relevant section, I misunderstood? I couldn't find it.
There is no relevant section, I'm afraid. My basic point is that the only limitation on how a patent holder licenses their patent in the US is likely to come from the US DoJ Antitrust division. This document lays out the ground rules the US DoJ applies in coming to the conclusion that an antitrust probe is warranted. If it helps, I don't think the FSMlabs open patent licence would fall foul of any of the DoJ guidelines for instituting an antitrust probe.
A summary of the document *from the point of view of a patent holder* only is available in the other document I referred to,
http://www.whepatent.com/opensource.pdf
Section V. A. Antitrust, which lays out the nine "no-no's" of patent licensing. Note, the idea is if the patent owner obeys all of the nine "no-no's", they're generally safe from antitrust, but the converse is not necessarily true (you can violate them and still might not be subject to an antitrust probe).
Perhaps, if you want to become more generally familiar with patent law in the US, one of the other internet sites (w.g. http://www.patents.com) may be of help. Remember, your average patent lawyer charges from $200-$500 an hour. If patent law and its application were easy, we wouldn't be paying those type of rates!
James
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |