On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:37 PM drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022, Clemens Lang <cllang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> Understanding is helped greatly by communication, though. Legal answers
>> such as "We can not" do not further this understanding, and "We
can not
>> and we can not tell you why" is not much better, but these are the typical
>> answer we get, not even with a "sorry, but we can't". Obviously,
these
>> legal questions are difficult to explain, but it can't be true that each
>> such case is under a "gag order”.
>
>
> A lawyer at a previous employer told me that explanations of such decisions
> can be used against you in court. Presumably, this also applies here.
That's sounds overlay paranoid. How can an explanation on why you are *not* doing
something be used against you in court? I can get why "we don't think that patent
XYZ applies so this is fine to ship" is problematic, but the other way around just
doesn't make sense.
Because if it is discovered you did it anyway, it can be classed as
"willful" infringement, which means you can be penalized for it even
more (damages can be tripled).
Now, in some cases, the reason is super-public anyway. Anything
involving the MPEG-LA typically counts as such. But HEVC has multiple
patent pools, MPEG-LA is just one of them. VVC is in the same boat. In
screwy situations like that, you just don't even bother. Stay away
from it all.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!