W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2007

[whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)

From: Joseph Daniel Zukiger <joseph_daniel_zukiger@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <715497.96350.qm@web60714.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
> 
> > What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer
> that
> > their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs
> are
> > free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us?
> 
> In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the
> patent says, it
> matters how the court *interprets* that law and
> patent.  Case law for
> patents is considered particularly random. 
> Therefore, no one can --
> even in theory -- offer a guarantee.

Something which should be a very string signal to
someone in the courts and in Congress that the current
interpretations of the current patent laws have
allowed breach of the Constitutionally provided checks
and balances.

> What they can offer is a risk assessment, like
> insurance companies use
> to set rates.

Insurance companies, being at the center of the
breach, should be considered traitors to the
Constitution (or serious chumps).

> As an analogy, Apple, Nokia, et. al. won't promise
> that the bridge is
> safe to cross, but they will tell you that they (who
> are much heavier)
> have already crossed it.

Hubris? Self-delusion? 

Evidence that they are planning an ambush?

> A single hobbyist who can't afford to hire a lawyer
> is relatively
> safe, because he or she is "judgment-proof" -- even
> if the patent
> trolls win, they won't get their money back.

Unless the troll is Microsoft or other large OS vendor
(probably operating by wire through some relatively
unknown) looking to squelch the ability of the little
guys to act independently.

No, I am not being paranoid. (Wherefore neoSCO?)

> A large corporation may be worth shaking down,
> because they'll often
> settle even stupid cases just to avoid the costs and
> risks of legal
> fees.  Therefore, if BigCorp has already used the
> technology widely
> enough to be expensive, *and* has not been sued, it
> at least suggests
> that no trolls have any relevant patents.

A conclusion contrary to the evidence of court
activity in progress (some of which has been mentioned
in other threads), if you don't mind my saying so.

joudanzuki


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 03:54:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC