Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Developers Still Fear Patent Wrath With S2TC

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    lawyers chess...

    Comment


    • #32
      there should be some greenpeace for patent pollution...
      i dont consider patents evil, but having a lawyer to protect you against the world is a little out...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jakubo View Post
        lawyer chess ...

        there should be some greenpeace for patent pollution...
        i dont consider patents evil, but having a lawyer to protect you against the world is a little out...
        Well, at least it's a great way for lawyers/attorneys to make buck-loads of money. We all have to live, right

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by yesterday View Post
          This is not thinking like a sane person. This is thinking like a retarded monkey. If anyone can add legally binding clauses to UNSOLICITED mail they send out, we would be living in fucking chaos.
          I am from a country where one is legally allowed to FORCE a person to write back snailmail in a spesific langauge. Said language is the second language in the country, which 10-15% actually got a properly master of it.
          And it has not been abused so far.
          And as allquixotic put it in post 18: There is actually a legal basis for forcing reply. Since the condition is "we WANT a reply to clarify a legal matter", it is not "you have sold your soul via not noticing the sign".

          A alternativ: Send enough mails so that there is more mail sent than what is statistically lost each year(that would mean 2 letters i guess) from different locations, add in the "we want reply within a month after receiving this letter" at the bottom, with bold print.
          If no reply is gained, wait arveage time it would take for the letter to arrive+time for reply to get back+2 days+1 month. Then bring it to civil court.
          No extortion, just ask the court for them to finally give their reply, or give them a time limit.
          If they breach the time limit, I guess you could either default their locals or ask the court to eliminate the patent in question.
          Actuall legal enforcability? Decent chance that the "we want a reply" is enforcable in UK, while in the US there is a minor chance that it would turn into a long and silly court case, except that that can't happen in civil court.

          Comment


          • #35
            summary of ML

            S2TC Author: Hey, we did this cool stuff we think works around the patents

            Brian Paul: cool, i like it.

            Jose: nope, can't use it with hardware drivers because of patents

            Other misc people: but wait, Mesa already allows you to pass ST3C textures to hardware just by setting an environment variable

            Jose: YOU GUYS ARE STUPID, NOW STFU and go away. i need a vacation

            S2TC Author: can you at least place a link to S2TC and description next to the one you guys have with S3TC?

            Marek: go away and talk to the distros.

            Everyone: sigh...

            Comment


            • #36
              Apple vs HTC patents

              Does anyone know if the ST3C patents Apple killed off are sufficient for Mesa to add ST3C support? I'm guessing maybe they are, but I don't know the details and whether there are multiple patents involved or not.

              If so, maybe by this time next year the whole patent situation around ST3C will be different and it won't be an issue.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by del_diablo View Post
                ...There is actually a legal basis for forcing reply. Since the condition is "we WANT a reply to clarify a legal matter"...
                Oh... go fly a kite.

                There is absolutely no way that any reasonable court would hold
                holder of some rights responsible for not educating some senseless
                troll and explaining their legal position. That's just a load of bull.

                "Do I infringe on your rights if i do this?"
                "Gee... I'm not sure... What am I, a babysitter? GET A FREAKIN' LAWYER!"

                The law is public. The patent is also public. You do know how to read.
                Owner of patent claim does not have to explain you shit...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  Marek: go away and talk to the distros.
                  Wait. Where did I say that? Certainly not in the S2TC thread.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by marek View Post
                    Wait. Where did I say that? Certainly not in the S2TC thread.
                    Oops, sorry about that. It was Corbin Simpson who said that.

                    Anyway, things seem to have gotten a lot more constructive this morning and I hadn't read those yet when I posted.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Doctrine of Latches

                      Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                      They can choose to ignore it for as long as they want, and they can choose to charge whenever they want. The onus is on YOU to ensure that you do not infringe. There is no such "not-enforced" defense for patents.
                      The defense of latches and estoppel are related and limit the patent owners right to recover for infringement because of delay in the filing of a suit. The equitable defense of latches bars recovery for pre-filing infringements, but does not bar recovery for post-filing infringements. The equitable defense of estoppel bars recovery for any infringement.

                      Latches: The defense of latches arises when the patent owner unreasonably and inexcusably delays filing suit for infringement to the material prejudice of the infringer.

                      (a) Unreasonable Delay. The major element of the latches defense is that the patent owner delayed in filing the suit for an unreasonable period of time. What constitutes an unreasonable delay depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. The critical period of delay is measured from the time when the patent owner knew, or in the exercise of due diligence, should have known of the defendants allegedly infringing activity. This time may be at or after (but not before) the date when the patent was issued.

                      In applying the equitable doctrine of latches, typically the courts have relied, by analogy, to the time period set forth in 35 U.S.C. 286 that provides no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint. Accordingly, the courts have adopted the six-year period as a presumptively unreasonable delay in filing suit and, therefore, latches. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the patent owner to excuse some or all of the delay.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by clavko View Post
                        There is absolutely no way that any reasonable court would hold
                        holder of some rights responsible for not educating some senseless
                        troll and explaining their legal position. That's just a load of bull.
                        Actually, they would. If it is not a straight case.
                        For instance: Murder is harshly punishable, but manslaugther is a different law.
                        And asking for a clarification is perfectly legal.
                        Denying a clarification should be illegal, but it is not because it would enable troll letters.

                        On the other hand:
                        If you are so mighty and wise, why is not the ST2C-stuff implented as a ad-hoc solution yet? Since everything is public, surely there can be no legal grey area?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          bizarre

                          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          Mesa already allows you to pass ST3C textures to hardware just by setting an environment variable
                          1. How does this apply to software rendering? That's a feature of mesa.

                          2. If my software allows use of ST3C textures and I did not purchase a license for this SOFTWARE patent, are you SURE that I am not infringing?

                          Are you willing to bet your company in court on your fine interpretation of the law?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by clavko View Post

                            The law is public. The patent is also public. You do know how to read.
                            Owner of patent claim does not have to explain you shit...
                            Estoppel: The defense of estoppel occurs when (1) the patent owner, through conduct, positive statement, or misleading silence, represents to the infringer that his business will be unmolested by claims of infringement, and (2) the infringer, in relying on this representation, continues or expands his business.

                            Estoppel is closely related to latches. In practice, estoppel additionally requires proof by the infringer that he was misled by patent owner conduct. Generally, silence without bad faith will not create an estoppel. However, where a patent owner openly asserts his rights and then chooses to sleep on them, thereby deceiving the infringer, the patent owner will be stopped from reasserting his patent rights in a tardy action.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                              Actually there might be some room in the legal system for this kind of thinking. It has happened before that a company or individual has lost their rights to a patent or trademark due to not enforcing it. To put it in layman's qualitative terms, basically, if someone abuses the heck out of your patent; you know about their abuse; but you don't do anything about it; then you can lose the rights to your patent because the system assumes that you are implicitly condoning the unlicensed patent use.
                              This is how I understand the system to be. In fact, this is, in part, why trademarks etc. are enforced so vigorously in the US. If you don't defend your trademark from obvious infringements, its is not possible to enforce any longer. It actually explains why so silly trademarks as 'Windows' and 'Apple' are being (attempted to be) uphold all the time.

                              Alas this might not hold true for patents..

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Implied license for hardware

                                Originally posted by Otus View Post
                                Could some one explain the details: I can't see why a driver for a licensed hardware implementation would infringe any patent?
                                Especially considering the implied license that consumers get when they purchase hardware.

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license

                                "Implied licenses often arise where the licensee has purchased a physical embodiment of some intellectual property belonging to the licensor, or has paid for its creation, but has not obtained permission to use the intellectual property."

                                If you have legally purchased the hardware, then you have the rights to use whatever is in the hardware, even without holding a specific license.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X