David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote: >> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge >> > ruling that without providing electricity, a working computer with a CD >> > reader, and a technician to operate it and read the words aloud, >> > distributing the documentation on a standard ISO9660 CD is in violation >> > of the license. >> > >> > (Yes, the above is a deliberately silly example. It's obsurd. If a judge >> > did maintain that position, we would all think the judge is nuts. But >> > there are judges that are nuts when it comes to technology - a LOT of >> > them. The example is meant to show a flaw in the GFDL.) >> >> Actually, isn't there a complicated set of trademark and patent claims >> preventing manufacture of a CD reader without paying money to Phillips >> and some trade organizations? This may not be that ridiculous. > > (s/obsurd/absurd/, BTW :) > > You mean if Phillips is the distributor? That's certainly what the > clause in the GFDL is supposed to prevent (people making proprietary > formats, charging for access to them or their decoders, then releasing > GFDL'd documentation under that format), so perhaps. > > I don't know the details about the CD market though :)
No. There's a consortium of companies, led by Phillips, which hold the trademarks on CDDA, CD-ROM, CD-R, "Compact Disc", and a pool of patents applicable to making compact discs and the devices to manipulate them. I can't just burn a disc and sell it with the CDDA logo on the side, nor can I make a machine which plays CDs and sell it as a CD player. Or rather, if I do, Phillips and the CD Consortium will sue me. -Brian
