Mesa Developers Still Fear Patent Wrath With S2TC

[jakubo]

lawyers chess...

[jakubo]

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...

[Azpegath]

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

[del_diablo]

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.

[smitty3268]

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...

[smitty3268]

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.

[clavko]

...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...

[marek]

Marek: go away and talk to the distros.

Wait. Where did I say that? Certainly not in the S2TC thread.

[smitty3268]

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.

[frantaylor]

Doctrine of Latches

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.