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

[Les Mikesell]

Erik Hemdal wrote:
> . . . 
>>>> 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.

Take a slightly different approach here.  Suppose instead of replacing 
product A with product B, you make a small modification to product A. Do 
you have the right to do that and still use it?  Then you make another 
small modification.  Is it still yours?  Repeat until it becomes the 
same as product B.  At what point did you lose the right to do the 
operation covered by the patent whose rights were obtained by the 
purchase of product A, which you still own?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com





> 
> 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
>