Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
> user doing any patent infringment.

Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.

> 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.

True. That doesn't make it less costly. :-)

>> 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.

One would hope.

> 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.

I disagree with that. Decoding infringes the patents, at least in the USA. 
If I buy a patented device someone else built, I'm not allowed to use it 
without a license. Most people who build the device buy a license that 
allows the buyers to use it without restriction. However, MPEG-LA doesn't 
sell that sort of license, or it's prohibitively expensive.

> 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.

Yes, exactly.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message