4 ms·
Seeing the technology and the parties involved, I think it's reasonable to suspect some form of Patent Ambush [1]. Even if it's not strictly a patent ambush as
by Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Seeing the technology and the parties involved, I think it's reasonable to suspect some form of Patent Ambush [1].
Even if it's not strictly a patent ambush as per the definition, certainly it would have been more ...polite... for Broadcom to have disclosed their patents to MPEG earlier.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambush
- freejazz 3y agoPatents are public, it's all disclosed.
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoIf you've been reading the orange site for longer, you're probably familiar with the kinds of shenanigans people have been getting up to with video codecs. US law has relatively recently been amended to reduce the scope and scale of the shenanigans people can get up. But it has certainly not been historically true (within this century) that everything is disclosed, certainly not within the USA. Also, if you've read a few software patents, you'll probably see pretty quickly that disclosure alone doesn't mean much in this particular field. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
- freejazz 3y agoI disagree with your assertion that "disclosure alone doesn't mean much in this particular field" and I generally do not find your comment responsive to what I wrote. It's incumbent upon a potential infringer to do their due diligence. Are you suggesting that reading the face of the asserted patent would somehow not indicate they were infringing? Upon what basis?
- Kim_Bruning 3y agohttps://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2575366B1-Signaling-of-coding-unit-prediction-and-prediction-unit-partition-mode-for-video-coding https://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2575366B1-Signaling-of-coding-uni... Here's the patent text at any rate.