on 7/6/2007 8:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Steve Searle wrote: >>> What is unlawful about VLC? If your expressing the Microsoft >>> position I don't think it would stand up in court. >> I understand In some juristictions (probably the US amongst others) some >> of the codec algorithms normally included in vlc cannot be legally used >> without the payment of royalties to the patent holders. > > > 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... FYI - All of the codecs are not supplied by Microsoft in Windows either. Only the ones that they license for their bundled software. The Windows Media Player is an example. Others can be added if needed or come with other media software that is *bought and paid for by you*. And they can provide the codecs because they pay a license fee. -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
