[mythtv-users] Is Mplayer going away? Anyone seen their WWW site recently?

[Stephen Boddy]

Apologies if some think this is OT, but I need an outlet ;-)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 09:42, Stephen Williams wrote:
> > No offence, but DUH!!! Of course a patent attorney is going to say that
> > this law is all hunky-dory, it's his future bread and butter!!!
>
> Well, actually no. Her firm does not take work of this kind and as
> such is unbiassed in this matter. On the other hand they are fully
> informed as to what is going on, and why. And yes, I have looked at
> both sides of the argument, read Groklaw, etc, have you?

Sorry, but as a patent attorney I assume she gets a salary? Makes a profit for 
the company she works for? She therefore has a vested interest, and that 
would make her biased, as her livelyhood depends on the need for patent 
attorneys. And yes, I've listened to the other side, but it has totally 
failed to convince me that a) they (software patents) are necessary, or b) 
that the CIID prohibits them. Fancy a challenge?

> > The ambiguous wording of the CIID opens the back door for pure
> > software patents, and there is a whole saga going on with the European
> > Parliament at loggerheads with the European Commission over amendments
> > and procedure.
>
> The CIID may well be ambiguously worded, but that's no different to
> any other bit of law. The exisitance of a truely unambiguous piece of
> law is a myth. It's final meaning will only be defined following a set
> of test cases. The European Patent Office has no intention of changing
> how software is currently treated, test cases will quickly confirm
> this position.

Great, so we define the specificity of a law after it is created in the all 
out land grab that ensues. And of course naturally those with the deepest 
pockets, and the most effective lawyers, will mould the law to their 
interests.

Your last sentence is nonsensical. One of the EPO's public statements is that 
this is intended to harmonise European patent law. So there are obviously 
differences, which logically must require changes. The question is where that 
new 'line' gets drawn. The CIID is too open to interpretation, which is 
exactly why people are concerned with the current draft, and the politicking 
that is going on. They tried to pass the CIID two or three time as an A item 
(no discussion, it just gets rubber stamped) in the Fisheries Commission!!!

> > I suggest you head over to www.groklaw.net for a thorough and
> > informative view of what's going on. It may (debatably) be biased the
> > other way, but at least you'd have both sides of the argument. Really!
> > Would you ask a fox to guard the chicken coop?
>
> You're right, Groklaw is biased the other way. Personally I consider a
> patent attorney with no personnel or financial involvement in this
> area to be about as unbiassed and well informed as you'll find.

See above as to why I believe it is impossible for a patent attorney to be 
unbiased. Well informed, perhaps, but not unbiased.

> > Wrong! Tell "_no_ material impact" to all the small and medium business
> > (the ones that usually drive innovation) that will be driven out of
> > business by this law.
> >
> > Innovation through litigation?
>
> Don't believe everything you read at Groklaw.

And what, I should believe the politicians instead, who try to weasel things 
through by trying to pass them under totally unrelated committees without 
discussion?

> The purpose of this
> directive is to _stop_ some countries in the EU that have been pushing
> software patents through the back doors and loop holes that currently
> exist.

Then why won't they explicitly exclude pure software patents in unequivocal 
terms? The language is convoluted, but the upshot is that as long as software 
has a "technical effect" it can be patented. Like to explain "technical 
effect" for me. People are still trying to get clarification on this.

Bearing in mind that we are on the MythTV list, I'm pretty certain that no 
component of MythTV would be exempt from patents, and would very likely be 
technically illegal to distribute under the CIID. Now a few examples. I will 
state up front that these cover USPO and EPO patents, but then they haven't 
stated that a company can't retroactively take out patents in the CIID.

MythWeb and MythBrowser: BT have a USP on the hyperlink.
MythMusic & MythStream: Franhoefer et al have patents on MP3 encoding 
decoding.
MythPhone: Voice compression codecs.
MythTV: The ability to pause and buffer TV, then catch up.
MythNews: I think RSS is based on RDF which is covered by an EP.
Samba file shares: Good ol' MS have patents on CIFS.
WishTV: Might be covered if the automated suggestions from other viewers gets 
developed.

And that was someone who is not a patent attorney, with just a short time of 
looking for examples.

Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders 
of giants." If we poked his eyes out and used a big Gladiators style pudgel 
(sp?) to knock him off the shoulders of the likes of Galileo, do you think we 
would be where we are today? No.

Feel free to try and convince me that big business is the one to structure the 
legal framework we all have to live with, but I'm a tough sell. Companies are 
in competition for money and market share. Anything they can do to increase 
those, they will do, and the bigger they get the more they can tilt the 
playing field in their own favour. If that means using every weapon at their 
disposal to crush any and all competition then so be it. If you can do it 
without too much come back, even better.
-- 
Steve Boddy