Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia...

[Jon 'maddog' Hall]

Ralph,

>So what it really comes down to is not who is in compliance with the 
>patent but who the patent-holders permit to violate their patent, how 
>well the patent holder was compensated to look the other way, and 
>whether at some future date the organization in this state of grace 
>manages to irritate the patent holder enough that the patent holder
>goes after them anyway.

>A near-perfect state of the eternal  absence of real freedom for all 
>players involved, no matter how much they pay for it.
>Dispensing injustice with consummate fairness. :)

This is what happens when an idea is thought of as a piece of property
and the patent is the recognition of the ownership of that property.

If you own something, you can do anything you want with it.  It is your
right to sell a piece of property, or to burn it, or give it away.

With patents you can even chose to prosecute some people and not others,
as long as you can prove that it is not based on some bias that is
illegal under the law.  For example, it probably is not legal to
prosecute only women based solely on their sex, or only blacks based
solely on their skin color.

The fact that the IP "belongs" to you whether or not you defend it is
what allows "submarine" patents.....patents which are not acted on until
the patented item is in wide use, the person (perhaps innocently)
violating the patent has invested millions in bringing out their product
and the owner can get a lot of money in damages.

Or, as in the case of Apple and HTC, the holder of the patent simply
blocks them from doing business altogether.

As to the "freedom" that is allowed or disallowed by patents, please
refer to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution..the
part that starts "To Promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts.."..it comes quite a bit before the "Bill of Rights":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiyU2tiEB1g

Warmest regards,

md