Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9

[Erik Hemdal]

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:01:15 -0500
> From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>
. . . 
> > 
> >> I think there would be an interesting legal argument that nearly all
> >> potential users have already paid the relevant patent royalties
> >> indirectly in the form of drivers and other software provided by the
> >> hardware vendors of the devices in question (and included in the cost),
> >> or in the copy of Windows they were essentially forced to buy with the
> >> computer.  Since they have paid to use the covered algorithms and since
> >> patents cover the process not specific instances, they should be
> >> permitted to use a version of it that actually works.  Of course I don't
> >> want to spend my own money to test this argument...
> > 


I think you're wise. Patent licenses cover the processes, but software
licenses cover the individual implementations that might use patented
inventions.  So you or I would probably be toast using that argument.

Inventor patents an invention under Patent 1 and licenses it to
Developer, who releases "Product A".  This product uses the invention in
Patent 1 legally, because Developer paid for a patent license.  You
license Product A from Developer when you buy your PC and a copy of
Windows.  You have a license to use the Product, but you don't have any
rights to exploit Patent 1 -- just to use the particular implementation
you licensed from Developer.

Let's say someone else uses the invention in Patent 1 in Product B, but
he doesn't obtain a patent license.  If you use Product B, you are at
some risk, because Product B infringes Inventor's patent rights.  You
might get away with it for a while, if Inventor doesn't protect his
invention, or just doesn't notice that Product B came out.  But you're
exposed nonetheless.

The gripe I have with DRM and measures against reverse-engineering is
that they make tinkering impossible and illegal.  If I bought a product,
traditionally I could take it apart to learn how it works.  I could make
myself smarter, at the risk of breaking something that I paid money for.

After tinkering, I still could not use the patented inventions I found
unless I obtained a patent license.  I could, however, try to outwit the
patent holder by doing the same job in a different way.  One could argue
that this is a big benefit of the patent system -- it documents
inventions, gives patent holders a reward, and other inventors an
incentive to innovate some more.

But DRM methods that make tinkering impossible and laws that make
tinkering illegal destroy this benefit.  

Erik