Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 16:16 +0100, Maik Merten a écrit : > Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom > for patent infringement and lost. > > It seems the court also recommended invalidating that patent. > > Now, that's one special patent that was questioned here. H.264 is > covered by many, many patents. Here's a list of patents that can be > licensed by paying money to the MPEG-LA: > > http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-att1.pdf > > All those patents (hundreds by the looks) are still in place. They're > not affected by the Qualcomm case at all.
Thanks for these precisions. I am still convinced that we should ignore patents entirely, but this isn't a consensus in the project, so the issues with h.264 remain the same as those of DivX et al. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
