Bruce Sass writes: > Hmmm, you seem to see "license" and automatically think "copyright". > ...
No. I just couldn't see any point unless I assumed you were discussing the interaction of a patent and the copyright on a work that implements it. > The conflict that could arise if a programmer used a patent algorithm > that appeared to be "free",... You mean that the patent owner granted the programmer a license, and the programmer interpreted it as "free"? > ...then the patent holder decided to change the license to something that > was "non-free"... This makes no sense. A patent owner cannot unilaterally and retroactively alter a license he has granted. > If the programmer refused, it could end up in court with the patent > holder saying, `I revoked the old license and replaced it with a new one, > but this programmer refuses to acknowledge my right to determine how my > invention can be used'. The programmer would probably say, `but I have a > license that lets me use the algorithm'. And the judge would read the license and decide whether or not it contained a revocation clause and if so whether or not it had been properly invoked. Then he would make his ruling. Old law, zillions of precedents. The fact that the patent is a software patent is irrelevant. > So, it would be up to the judge to determine if the rights granted by the > patent are more important than the rights granted by a license issued > under the authority of the patent. That sentence makes no sense. The right granted to the patent is, effectively, the right to grant licenses. > In one jurisdiction it may be plausible that the patent holder gives up > all rights as a patent holder by (lets say) GPLing the license. Attempting to apply the GPL to a patent would be nonsensical. > In another jurisdiction the most likely outcome may be that the patent > holder's rights take precedence over the licensee's rights, irregardless > of any previous license,.,.. Where are you getting this stuff about a conflict of rights? The licensee has whatever rights the patent holder has granted him. > ... simply because it is the patent that gives the patent holder the > right to apply whatever license they want to. The patent owner doesn't "apply" a license. He grants one. To the licensee. > Now, what happens when I wake up some morning and decide to change the > license that pertains to the use of the algorithm, `give me $10,000 or > stop using my invention'... That will depend on whether or not the thing you included in your copyright license is considered the grant of a license to the public to use the patent. If it is and contains no revocation clause you won't get your money. > On the other hand, if you tried to make the same argument with respect to > a patent algorithm of mine (and were successful), you would be violating > my right to determine how my invention can be used... No, I would merely be asserting that you had granted me a license. > ...which includes the right to change the terms of the contract that > allows you to use my idea (the license) as long as nothing in the > contract prevents it. There is no such right. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
