|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |