Re: Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9

on 7/7/2007 11:32 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Erik Hemdal wrote:
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
. . . .
Erik Hemdal wrote:
. . .
I think there would be an interesting legal argument that nearly all
potential users have already paid the relevant patent royalties
indirectly in the form of drivers and other software provided by the
. . . .
I think you're wise. Patent licenses cover the processes, but software
licenses cover the individual implementations that might use patented
inventions. So you or I would probably be toast using that argument.

Inventor patents an invention under Patent 1 and licenses it to
Developer, who releases "Product A". This product uses the invention in
Patent 1 legally, because Developer paid for a patent license. You
license Product A from Developer when you buy your PC and a copy of
Windows. You have a license to use the Product, but you don't have any
rights to exploit Patent 1 -- just to use the particular implementation
you licensed from Developer.

Let's say someone else uses the invention in Patent 1 in Product B, but
he doesn't obtain a patent license. If you use Product B, you are at
some risk, because Product B infringes Inventor's patent rights. You
might get away with it for a while, if Inventor doesn't protect his
invention, or just doesn't notice that Product B came out. But you're
exposed nonetheless.
Take a slightly different approach here. Suppose instead of replacing
product A with product B, you make a small modification to product A. Do
you have the right to do that and still use it?
Nice to see you back, Les. I always learn a lot from your posts. This
time, I agree with you, but you might not agree with yourself by the end
of things.

If you have the right to modify Product A, then I think I agree with
you, you can modify it as you wish. If Product A in practice is a
closed-source application, you can't modify it, though. So the right to
modify the software doesn't buy you anything.

If you obtain Product B that implements some patented process from
someone who does not have a patent license, then you should not use it.
Even if the author gives you the right to modify his source code, he
does not have the right to use the patented process in the software he's
distributing to you. He owns his code, to be sure, but he doesn't own
the process. That's owned by the patent holder, who didn't get paid.

If the process isn't patentable where he lives, he's free to give the
software to people there, and to give you different software that
doesn't rely on the patented process.

There are a lot of wrinkles here. What if the author doesn't know that
you got the software? What if you got the software from someone else
who lives where the author does? What if the Product B software doesn't
really implement the patented process? What if you didn't know that the
process was patented in the first place? You need an attorney for these
questions.

Whether you've licensed some other software that uses the patented
process has no bearing. You're still free to use it, but you chose not
to.

Here's another way to look at it. If I buy a car with anti-lock brakes,
I get to use that patented technology. I can disassemble the ABS module
if I want and try to make my own module (the right-to-modify point).
But I can't get anti-lock brakes on my next car for free; nor can I
demand free ABS on a Chrysler just because my Ford ABS module is sitting
on the shelf.

I always worry that I won't make the point I intend, or maybe offend
someone in doing it. Does that help you to see my point?

I don't think this point is clear at all. This is software, remember,
just a collection of bits and I'm introducing the modifications myself.
Suppose I rearrange a few of the bits in program A as my own
modification, but keeping all the 1's and 0's that used to be there.
Suppose I keep rearranging them until they look just like program B
which might be something I developed myself or it might be very close or
identical to something someone else has done and published. At what
point do I stop having the right to use the process permitted by those
original bits that I still own. Now it becomes a question of whether I
have the right to use the parts of that paid-for Ford ABS if I bolt them
onto a Chrysler myself.

I guess I will try to explain this to you one last time.

The person(s) that wrote Program A, the one that you have on CD, bought
and paid for a license to utilize certain other software in *their*
Program A as needed. The original owner still owns the needed parts and
Program A does not own anything except Program A. It just pays to use ihe
other parts.

You paid for a license to *use* Program A, even if it was bundled software
that came with your computer when you bought it, as a whole product. You
do not *own* Program A or anyof its parts. You can only use Program A as a
whole product or give Program A away as a whole if you remove it from your
computer. You do *not* have a license to use any of the parts seperately
in any way. Program A has the right to use the parts. Not you. You only
have the license to use Program A as a whole product.

Simply put - You have a license to use, you do *not* even own, the whole
Program A as provided and not the individual parts that Program A uses.

Now if you want to write Program B and you use *any* of the copyrighted
parts from Program A, or any of the parts that make up Program A if it is
copyrighted, that you, yourself, do not have a license that *you* paid for
to use you are breaking the law. Period.

Honestly. Just read one of the darn EULAs. Or have an attorney explain it
to you.

--

David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Great Divide
    ... >> An invention is a solution to a problem. ... But sometimes they don't care that much about getting paid. ... The patent requires them to publish, ... wealthy banks in wealthy countries. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9
    ... because the company that *sold* you the software paid a license fee to do ... why is it any of the patent holders ... license for the codecs. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: wurld-scam sux
    ... " This is a warning to all software companies: Do not use any GPL or LGPL ... The BSD license does *not* enable people to retract their code from public ... If I release FooBar 1.0 under a BSD-style license, ... What happens is that $bigCompany will come 'round, file a patent ...
    (comp.sys.cbm)
  • Re: Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9
    ... Specifically you have the rights given to you in the license. ... holder of the patent. ... You may use that product in anyway you see fit. ... purports to protect fall under copyright law. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9
    ... What I'm trying to discuss is the right to use a patented technology which has already been paid for. ... We are talking about _not_ using the version covered by the copyright license provided because that version is unsuitable for our usage. ... The non-US FOSS codecs don't infringe on copyrights because they were developed independently. ... they may infringe on US patent laws if such laws really do permit algorithms to be patented even though they weren't supposed to. ...
    (Fedora)
Loading