[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
True. True. MPEG just annoys me because there seems to be a
never-ending stream of folks proclaiming how unencumbered it is or
will be so just go along ahead and use it cuz there won't never be a
problem or is it that there won't never be no problem? (Is that a
double or triple negative from dept of redundancy dept again). The
real word for them is indefatigable.
I'm coming up on another cusp of having to decide whether I knuckle
under to them--or advise some clients to do so at least temporarily,
because I won't if I can help it. It's just that the flag wavers seem
to be so naive about the rest of their patent club because they
haven't been burned yet, and every year that goes by before the big
players decide the time is right to start enforcing those patents (or
threaten to do so if that is all it takes to start collecting their
tribute), just makes those flag wavers' same old arguments seem so
much more attractive to the client small fry that swim in my little
pond.
I've just been "farmed" before, and it is not simply painful, it is
fatal, although there are sometimes fairly lucrative buyouts to be
had while dying.
You're right about indemnification. Being on the open source side
bids me to try and bide my time and let the tides show how this is
going to play out.
Ciao,
Rex
At 9:39 AM -0500 8/5/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Not quite.
>
>http://octaga.com
>
>Sometimes the patented and open technolgies play well
>together and the licensing is paid for by the vendor.
>The end user gets the player for free, but the editor+codec
>may cost and again, the cost of licensing is bundled
>into that. That is how gif was handled. This stuff
>is a problem for open source groups, admittedly, so
>it is better to seek alternatives to licensing. The
>only thing one cannot do is ignore the patents because
>we are back to the indemnity problem. It is better
>to convince the patent holder that the market opportunities
>are better if open source is enabled. That is a
>sales job and not always an easy one.
>
>I am not concerned that firms patent IP as long as they
>play by the rules of the standards and specifications
>organizations when they make a submission, and hide
>no details that taint the products. XML binarization
>is an area in which patents exist. Ok. As long as
>submissions to the W3C or others fit within the policies,
>no problem. It will be a problem if the only acceptable
>solution is one that they will not submit under those
>policies. Then the organizations have to standardize
>an inferior technology or pay the tolls. Fortunately,
>there aren't many technologies for which acceptable
>alternatives aren't available, or that is the position
>some take.
>
>What one must have is a level playing field before
>the law.
>
>len
>
>
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
>Somebody stick a fork in MPEG. It's done. In fact its way overcooked.
>Like a dinosaur brain that hasn't yet got the message that its dead
>yet. --courtesy dept of redundancy dept. Better yet, require it carry
>a poison warning symbol.
>
>Taps, please,
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
|
