A Possible Workaround For The S3TC Patent Situation

[pingufunkybeat]

That's why you have appeals and higher instances. A judge must follow the letter of the law, and if they fail, the lawyers go piranha on him.

I agree that courts are imperfect and all that, but I don't think that what you're talking about has ever actually happened. Courts make strange patent rulings, but will NEVER rule a patent (or copyright) invalid because you did not litigate in the past.

I also think that you might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent . Without a legal ruling, there is no precedent.

[AnonymousCoward]

sure thats it.,.. Germany is the economic biggest part in Europe..

you can't talk its free to use in Europe if the biggest part can't use it.

Germany overall is the EU pay master if some Greek needs money Germany pay.

even if Spain needs money to Germany pay. and maybe Italy next.

pay means give unlimited credit.

but hey the Germans people do have 10 000 000 000 000 euro... they pay this in cash on hand LOL

sure they do have owe of 2 000 000 000 000 but how care?

Because only German people work, and the rest of Europe spends it...

[droidhacker]

Has there ever been a precedent (as in: a court ruling) which ruled that a patent or copyright don't count anymore because you forgot to sue somebody in the past?

Ugh, don't take this the wrong way, but talking to you is like talking to children.
The court would never rule like that.

Whenever you're in court (for whatever reason -- traffic violation, litigation, etc.), the one thing that you always know is that you can never predict the outcome. Even if it makes complete sense and you KNOW that the judgement should be in your favor. No matter how impartial the judge tries to be, he, like everybody else, is HUMAN and will rule based to some degree on his own personal biases. There is no getting around this. If you give the impression that you're not really serious about your IP, then the judge won't take you seriously and will make a ruling along the lines of "does not apply".

If you want your IP rights to be held up in court, you need to be CONSISTENT with the application of the law to defend those rights. Whether the LAW is on your side or not, you aren't presenting your case to a computer, you're presenting it to a HUMAN.

[pingufunkybeat]

Has there ever been a precedent (as in: a court ruling) which ruled that a patent or copyright don't count anymore because you forgot to sue somebody in the past?

[droidhacker]

This is how trademarks work. That's why things like Xerox, Hoover and Cola can't be enforced anymore, since they've entered the common language.

But if you have a patent, you have a patent. Same with copyright. I simply can't imagine the "others violated the copyright before us, so it doesn't count anymore" defense can work anywhere in the world. It's your "right" so you sue at your own discretion, if you feel like it.

"Intellectual property" is a very misleading concept. It groups very different things together. They work very differently.

I'm not arguing with what should or shouldn't be or the technicalities of the various branches of IP. The fact remains that the courts are IMPERFECT and very VERY likely to be swayed by PRECEDENCE.

[pingufunkybeat]

This is how trademarks work. That's why things like Xerox, Hoover and Cola can't be enforced anymore, since they've entered the common language.

But if you have a patent, you have a patent. Same with copyright. I simply can't imagine the "others violated the copyright before us, so it doesn't count anymore" defense can work anywhere in the world. It's your "right" so you sue at your own discretion, if you feel like it.

"Intellectual property" is a very misleading concept. It groups very different things together. They work very differently.

[droidhacker]

You don't lose copyright unless it expires, what on Earth are you two on about?

I'm not sure what he was talking about, but I'm only talking about the court's willingness to enforce IP rights, whether they be through copyright or patent (which really boil down to very similar concepts -- "this information belongs to me"). If you have a history of not being interested in enforcing your IP and then suddenly want to enforce it, but only against a single violator, then there is this question of why. Courts are run by humans, and REALLY like precedent... so if you set a precedent of allowing your IP rights to slide, the court will be less likely to side with you when you finally do want to enforce it... especially if it is just in one specific instance.

[pingufunkybeat]

You don't lose copyright unless it expires, what on Earth are you two on about?

[droidhacker]

No that is not how patents work, you can only loose patents by having them invalidated by a court, and that cannot happen due to you letting others use the patent without litigating.

What you are thinking about it copyright law, if you don't protect your copyright you loose it.

Yes but it was filed in 1997 which is the date from which the 20 years should be added so it will expire in 2017.

Patents and copyright are essentially the same thing. If you have a history of NOT protecting your patents, then the courts will be less likely to enforce your patents when you finally do attempt to do so.

[divVerent]

Forcing such an option enabled is certainly bad style and I would not recommend anyone to do that.

However, Xonotic itself already comes with a S3TC fallback - one I wrote that predates S2TC. It decompresses each of the 4x4 blocks into ONE pixel, by just averaging the two color values and ignoring the pixel data. The rationale is that the affected chipset likely can't handle the full resolution well anyway due to being low on VRAM (or not having any at all, and always using system RAM). This assumption is true for Intel chipsets, and anything DRI - except the more modern DRI supported Radeon cards, and Nouveau - for both of which, non-free but "properly" S3TC supporting drivers are available too.