Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
>> decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
> 
> Well, it's the end user doing the decoding. And if I upload an h.264
> video to a host and that host distributes it, the host isn't doing
> encoding or decoding any more than the routers are. So while this may be
> business as usual, it doesn't sound like the legal system has figured
> out the reality of the situation yet.
> 

Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
user doing any patent infringment.

>> If the video encoder
>> paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
>> be asked to, then the video host should not be liable.
> 
> That would be my guess, yes, but this is the legal system we're talking
> about.
> 

Patents have been relatively clear of all the drama that surrounds
copyright enforcement. There is still that trouble over what patents
should be allowed to cover, but enforcement seems to be pretty stable.

> And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
> software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video
> back to the USA?
> 
> I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
> 

Now, that would be a fun one. By patent law, as long as all of the
infringement took place outside jurisdiction, it should be in the clear.
So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.
Now, the trouble would be that no one in the patent coverage could watch
the video, unless they sent it back out of the area and received back an
unencumbered format. At which point, you are better distributing the
first format to begin with.

Post a reply to this message