[whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements)
Christian F.K. Schaller
christian at fluendo.com
Fri Mar 23 04:49:44 PDT 2007
This is a strange way of looking at the issue. Once a patent is granted
it is by definition valid and enforceable. It is the people opposing it
who have to prove their non-legality at that point and not the other way
around. So sure a lot of software patents might be challenged around
Europe, but the main burden of proving they are non-valid falls on the
people opposing the patent and not the patent holder. So until someone
have successfully challenged all the patents involved and gotten them
found invalid they are by definition valid. A granted patent is valid
until a court of law finds it invalid, not invalid until a court of law
finds it valid.
Be aware that I do not support the idea of software patents, not in the
slightest, but one have to accept that in many places around the world
they are 'the law of the land'. One should work to change the law, not
pretend it doesn't exist.
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:30 +0000, Gareth Hay wrote:
> As i said in a previous post, this is a very grey area.
> So much so that many of the granted patents are being opposed, and
> until the outcome of these oppositions, neither one of us can comment
> on the true legality of them.
> I would suggest backing away from any such areas where software
> patentability becomes an issue. Case law hasn't sufficiently
> established the legality in my country, europe and many, many
> On 23 Mar 2007, at 10:02, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
> > It is an Urban Legend that there are no software patents in the EU.
> > True
> > enough there is no 'EU' software patents, but a lot of member
> > states do
> > have them. I suggest going the MPEG LA's webpage and looking at the
> > patent lists they have there for MPEG4. You will notice that a lot of
> > the patents are from EU countries.
> > Christian
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:35 +0000, Gareth Hay wrote:
> >> Not in the EU, no such thing as a software patent.
> >> On 23 Mar 2007, at 04:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
> >>>> MPEG-4 is proprietary, because it is covered by patents.
> >>> I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by
> >>> patents,
> >>> HTML is covered by patents, the DOM is covered by patents,
> >>> covered by patents, and so forth. Proprietary technologies are
> >>> those that
> >>> are under the control of a single vendor. MPEG-4 is not proprietary.
> >>> It's not available under royalty free licensing. But it is not
> >>> under the
> >>> control of a single vendor. That is the important difference, not
> >>> whether
> >>> the technology is patented or not.
> >>> --
> >>> Ian Hickson U+1047E )
> >>> \._.,--....,'``. fL
> >>> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _
> >>> \ ;`._ ,.
> >>> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--
> >>> (,_..'`-.;.'
> > --
> > Business Development Manager
> > Fluendo S.A.
> > Office Phone: +34 933175153
> > Mobile Phone: +34 678608328
Business Development Manager
Office Phone: +34 933175153
Mobile Phone: +34 678608328
More information about the whatwg