On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:43:52PM +0100, Maik Merten wrote: > Romain Beauxis schrieb: > > I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that > > claims > > that some algorithm you designed were "owned" by it.. Have you ever looked > > at > > the JPEG processing for example ? It is simply a fourier transform followed > > by an huffman compression... All well known, but still "owned" by an > > abusing > > patent..
> There's a vital difference between knowing that you may get stabbed > (submarine patents) and deliberately asking someone to stab you > (choosing a format that is covered by patents that are actively enforced). And indeed, from a standards POV, it's in our best interest as a society to encourage and promulgate standards which do *not* depend on actively-enforced patents. Even if we believe that Debian and Debian users can avoid having to pay such fees, the inclusion of such patented technologies in a standard ensures that the patent holders *will* collect more licensing fees from *others* who implement the standard, thereby rewarding them for their abuse of patents. The biggest obstacle to freedom from immoral and illegal patent regimes is that racketeering is *profitable*. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
