[Fedora-packaging] Inaccurate information about LiVES package

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On 06/01/2010 10:41 AM, salsaman wrote:
> Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the
> *core* of ffmpeg.

Since I don't want anyone to get the impression that I didn't see this
and chose to ignore it, let me reply.

It is very difficult to have an open and honest discussion about
patents. If I was to say "ffmpeg violates patent #123456789ABCDE" (1),
it has the potential to be extremely damaging to Red Hat (or
potentially, others), as merely doing so puts Red Hat at a much higher
risk of being found guilty of "willful infringement" and subject to the
possibility of "treble damages".

For details on how that works, please read:
http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_234.pdf

So, even if I were to clearly bound my statement as being applicable to
only ffmpeg, I would be going on the public record as:

* Being aware of Patent #123456789ABCDE (and accordingly, that Red Hat
was aware)
* Being familiar enough with Patent #123456789ABCDE to say that it is
applicable in that case (so, obviously, both I and Red Hat must be aware
of all other places where it is applicable)

The patent holder(s) of #123456789ABCDE would then be able to go through
EVERYTHING that Red Hat distributes (which is not a small amount of
stuff), find anything that they feel that #123456789ABCDE infringes, and
file suit, with my email response as evidence.

So, you will never ever ever ever ever get an email from me or Red Hat
that says "foo infringes patent #bar" or even "foo doesn't infringe
patent #bar", because of what that means, and the risk it imposes on us.

In 2009, the cost of the average patent lawsuit was $5,500,000. (2)
That's just how much it costs to deal with the lawsuit. The damages,
should the court find for the patent holder, could easily be 5 to 10
times that amount.

Hopefully, this clarifies why Red Hat does not make statements about
specific patents.

*****

Now, with that said:

ffmpeg continues to be unacceptable for Fedora due to legal concerns.

I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.

Thanks,

Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal

P.S. I Am Not A Lawyer. Nothing in the above email should be considered
legal advice. I consult regularly with Red Hat Legal, who are lawyers.

P.P.S. I don't think Debian accounts for patents in any meaningful way
when considering which software can be included in their repositories,
only copyright licensing.

Notes:

(1) Not a real patent. Not a real statement of review of non-real patent.
(2) 2009 AIPLA Economic Survey at pp. 138 to 141.