Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
Further to my original post:
Is it not the case that patents cover
innovations, not
products or services? How do we, can we, untangle the
'innovative step' to stand on its own - apart from other
"Standards
Essential Patents"? Would invalidating a prior,
non-Nokia, patent upon
which they build, also invalidate
theirs? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
my original thought was they'd have to be very selective in
their patent choices to only put vp8 in the targets. a clear
response in deposition from somebody at moto that h.264 also
infringes should make the nature of this attack obvious to
all. if h.264 doesn't infringe, then the patents must be very
narrow and mostly worthless, imho.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
If Nokia isn't a member of MPEG LA then it sure is chummy with the people
running the show there:
MobileMedia is closely connected to
MPEG-LA. In addition to having the same CEO, MobileMedia is majority-owned by an
MPEG-LA subsidiary. Nokia and Sony own a minority share of the company, which
means they stand to profit from this court win against Apple.
Jury finds iPhone infringes Nokia, Sony patents
owned by “troll”[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
Nokia has not donated these to MPEG LA.
So it's outside of that completely. It means
if anyone uses VP8, Nokia is indicating an
intention to sue, maybe. Sometimes companies
just file these statements, I've read, because
they can and there's no downside. But it
doesn't at all mean that the patents are valid.
It's to make companies too worried to adopt
the new format and/or make it so it doesn't
get adopted by IETF.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|