OK, Tom, thanks for clarifying that.<br><br><br>Salsaman.<br clear="all"><br><a href="http://lives.sourceforge.net">http://lives.sourceforge.net</a><br><a href="https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman">https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman</a><br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com">tcallawa@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 06/01/2010 10:41 AM, salsaman wrote:<br>
> Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the<br>
> *core* of ffmpeg.<br>
<br>
</div>Since I don't want anyone to get the impression that I didn't see this<br>
and chose to ignore it, let me reply.<br>
<br>
It is very difficult to have an open and honest discussion about<br>
patents. If I was to say "ffmpeg violates patent #123456789ABCDE" (1),<br>
it has the potential to be extremely damaging to Red Hat (or<br>
potentially, others), as merely doing so puts Red Hat at a much higher<br>
risk of being found guilty of "willful infringement" and subject to the<br>
possibility of "treble damages".<br>
<br>
For details on how that works, please read:<br>
<a href="http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_234.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_234.pdf</a><br>
<br>
So, even if I were to clearly bound my statement as being applicable to<br>
only ffmpeg, I would be going on the public record as:<br>
<br>
* Being aware of Patent #123456789ABCDE (and accordingly, that Red Hat<br>
was aware)<br>
* Being familiar enough with Patent #123456789ABCDE to say that it is<br>
applicable in that case (so, obviously, both I and Red Hat must be aware<br>
of all other places where it is applicable)<br>
<br>
The patent holder(s) of #123456789ABCDE would then be able to go through<br>
EVERYTHING that Red Hat distributes (which is not a small amount of<br>
stuff), find anything that they feel that #123456789ABCDE infringes, and<br>
file suit, with my email response as evidence.<br>
<br>
So, you will never ever ever ever ever get an email from me or Red Hat<br>
that says "foo infringes patent #bar" or even "foo doesn't infringe<br>
patent #bar", because of what that means, and the risk it imposes on us.<br>
<br>
In 2009, the cost of the average patent lawsuit was $5,500,000. (2)<br>
That's just how much it costs to deal with the lawsuit. The damages,<br>
should the court find for the patent holder, could easily be 5 to 10<br>
times that amount.<br>
<br>
Hopefully, this clarifies why Red Hat does not make statements about<br>
specific patents.<br>
<br>
*****<br>
<br>
Now, with that said:<br>
<br>
ffmpeg continues to be unacceptable for Fedora due to legal concerns.<br>
<br>
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal<br>
<br>
P.S. I Am Not A Lawyer. Nothing in the above email should be considered<br>
legal advice. I consult regularly with Red Hat Legal, who are lawyers.<br>
<br>
P.P.S. I don't think Debian accounts for patents in any meaningful way<br>
when considering which software can be included in their repositories,<br>
only copyright licensing.<br>
<br>
Notes:<br>
<br>
(1) Not a real patent. Not a real statement of review of non-real patent.<br>
(2) 2009 AIPLA Economic Survey at pp. 138 to 141.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>