5 ms·

> The patents are referred to as Standards Essential Patents, or SEPs. Because of this arrangement, a vendor like Nordic probably can’t open source their modem

> The patents are referred to as Standards Essential Patents, or SEPs. Because of this arrangement, a vendor like Nordic probably can’t open source their modem firmware even if they wanted to. Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware? The IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and trade secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and cannot) grant a patent license to those licensed standards-essential patents. It only imperils your implementation of the modem firmware, not the whole patent spec. To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed code, even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that they are licensing. OpenH264 does ship with an additional patent sublicense that applies if you are using their build and installing it in a specific way, but that is particular to MPEG-LA's licensing structure[1]. Publishing an implementation of a patent you are licensing does not automatically sublicense the patent. [0] Laws that grant the ability to dictate the conduct of your competitors [1] Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty fee cap to shield FOSS entities from having to take a license, basically, by paying for them.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
I suspect a big reason is that there’s middleware: some of this stuff is so complex, that like video games, there’s probably a cottage industry of companies selling partially implemented bits and pieces, or licensing across companies of source code, or companies only licensing the patents if you agree to never release code. There’s also the IP angle: if you do manage to figure it out, there’s no honor helping Huawei.
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  > I suspect a big reason is that there’s middleware I’d bet it’s simpler. Saying “yes” to the ‘can we share this outside of this company?’ Question means a lot of work and meetings and red tape and somebody is going to have to rope in legal and … and … and … Or, “no, get back to work”.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    True, but who owns most of the patents? Some of the most litigious companies on earth (Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco). How many legal cases are more expensive than patent litigation? Also, it’s very simple: Imagine you approach Qualcomm. The script probably goes something like this: “Sure, we’ll license you that patent, for $0.92 per device, a $25K per month maintenance fee, and compliance with our terms and conditions - chiefly, don’t license this patent to anyone else, and don’t share the source code of your implementation.”
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  I honestly just figured it was spectrum licensing. You can’t sell devices that can broadcast at power on just any old frequency. At a hardware level these modems are capable of going well outside the bounds of mobile device regulations. See all the ‘turn xyz into a software defined radio’ hacks that have been done before on other devices on the market. So the firmware is locked down. To do otherwise will break spectrum licensing as the device then becomes capable of doing things outside the original licensed purpose.
  - ndiddy 2y ago
    That's probably it, the FCC won't let you sell a device that has a user-accessible method to violate wireless regulations. At most, they could release the source code but not the signing keys so end-users could inspect but not change the firmware.
    - crote 2y ago
      Wouldn't the FCC come into play at a later level? We're talking about providing source code to device developers, not end users. As long as the device developers ensure the products they release are locked down, the FCC shouldn't care about it - they only look at the final product as sold to end users.
      - ndiddy 2y ago
        Both the modem module and the device incorporating the modem module have to be FCC licensed. When I said "FCC won't let you sell a device that has a user-accessible method to violate wireless regulations", I was referring to the modem company selling the modem module to device developers. Sorry for being unclear there.
    - PinkSheep 2y ago
      I'm not too keen on this topic, but router firmware usually asked YOU, what country you (it, the router) resides in to allow or block additional frequencies. No source required. And then Intel still goes and makes their "automatic geolocation for frequency policy based on neighboring APs" mechanism the default and only policy in their wireless Wi-Fi drivers.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  Middleware certainly seems plausible; see also the state of x86 UEFI firmware, which is basically just one company (AMI) selling customized firmware outside of the FOSS coreboot/libreboot world. With how complicated most cellular standards are, I imagine a lot of modem firmware is just one company we've never heard of selling a basic implementation that gets customized for each modem vendor. Keeping the implementation secret as a condition of licensing the patent is not entirely unimaginable. It would be, however, very, very stupid (if you aren't outright evil), and not provide any extra licensing rents to the SEP holders. In the video world they don't do this; because everyone expects that anyone actually shipping a codec is going to pay[0]. But then again this is also cellular firmware; implementing standards owned by Qualcomm. And Qualcomm loves pushing the boundaries of how anticompetitive you can be with legal monopolies before actually violating competition law. They're the ones that saddled the US with "CDMA" "standards"[1] that put half of America's carriers on incompatible networks with phones you couldn't migrate to other networks. (Even other CDMA networks!) If Qualcomm had their way, they'd own LTE and 5G lock, stock, and barrel with the only modems you can buy being buried in a Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC. [0] That's not to say that video SEP owners are particularly happy right now. The head of MPEG insists he was sacked for, among other things, complaining about MPEG's inability to standardize a royalty-free codec under ISO's patent disclosure rules. [1] Including a competing standards body to 3GPP called, I shit you not, 3GPP2.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  Yes, this is precisely what happens. There are decent sized companies, such as Etherstack, who exist to develop and sell wireless protocol stacks to OEMs. https://www.etherstack.com/ https://www.etherstack.com/
burnte 2y ago
> Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware? Contracts and money. > The IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and trade secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and cannot) grant a patent license to those licensed standards-essential patents. It only imperils your implementation of the modem firmware, not the whole patent spec. Publishing the source to the firmware would allow people to make use of patented tech without paying for it even though it would be illegal to do so. Also, your license may simply stipulate that you cannot publish or share your code in anyway outside the company. > To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed code, even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that they are licensing. > Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty fee cap to shield FOSS entities from having to take a license, basically, by paying for them. As you point out here, Cisco is paying for it. They publish open code, and to ensure the LA doesn't come after them, they're paying additional money.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  There's also the possibility of trade secrets being involved. An example hypothetical: Maybe Qualcomm has tons of lab data showing signal performance and integrity for any given channel, band, power level, general environment (urban, suburban, rural), device position, device altitude, etc. You might want to use that data, and algorithms derived from it, to improve your device's battery life. That data obviously cannot be patented, and while the lab data would be copyrighted and not part of the finished product, Qualcomm would understandably be mighty particular about any open-source code implementing the conclusions.
- p_l 2y ago
  MPEG-LA also explicitly used to (I do not know current state) consider open source "some assembly required" releases to be non-infringing. It was product incorporating the patented tech, i.e. ready to use binaries, that required licensing. Cisco paid the licensing fees to enable easily downloadable h.264 codec for certain projects, but you could legally build it from source yourself. IIRC h.265 had similar licensing
  - ksec 2y ago
bigfatkitten 2y ago
Nordic probably doesn't own all of the code, which is a separate issue to the patents.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

I suspect a big reason is that there’s middleware: some of this stuff is so complex, that like video games, there’s probably a cottage industry of companies selling partially implemented bits and pieces, or licensing across companies of source code, or companies only licensing the patents if you agree to never release code. There’s also the IP angle: if you do manage to figure it out, there’s no honor helping Huawei.

baby_souffle 2y ago
> I suspect a big reason is that there’s middleware I’d bet it’s simpler. Saying “yes” to the ‘can we share this outside of this company?’ Question means a lot of work and meetings and red tape and somebody is going to have to rope in legal and … and … and … Or, “no, get back to work”.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  True, but who owns most of the patents? Some of the most litigious companies on earth (Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco). How many legal cases are more expensive than patent litigation? Also, it’s very simple: Imagine you approach Qualcomm. The script probably goes something like this: “Sure, we’ll license you that patent, for $0.92 per device, a $25K per month maintenance fee, and compliance with our terms and conditions - chiefly, don’t license this patent to anyone else, and don’t share the source code of your implementation.”
AnotherGoodName 2y ago
I honestly just figured it was spectrum licensing. You can’t sell devices that can broadcast at power on just any old frequency. At a hardware level these modems are capable of going well outside the bounds of mobile device regulations. See all the ‘turn xyz into a software defined radio’ hacks that have been done before on other devices on the market. So the firmware is locked down. To do otherwise will break spectrum licensing as the device then becomes capable of doing things outside the original licensed purpose.
- ndiddy 2y ago
  That's probably it, the FCC won't let you sell a device that has a user-accessible method to violate wireless regulations. At most, they could release the source code but not the signing keys so end-users could inspect but not change the firmware.
  - crote 2y ago
    Wouldn't the FCC come into play at a later level? We're talking about providing source code to device developers, not end users. As long as the device developers ensure the products they release are locked down, the FCC shouldn't care about it - they only look at the final product as sold to end users.
    - ndiddy 2y ago
      Both the modem module and the device incorporating the modem module have to be FCC licensed. When I said "FCC won't let you sell a device that has a user-accessible method to violate wireless regulations", I was referring to the modem company selling the modem module to device developers. Sorry for being unclear there.
  - PinkSheep 2y ago
    I'm not too keen on this topic, but router firmware usually asked YOU, what country you (it, the router) resides in to allow or block additional frequencies. No source required. And then Intel still goes and makes their "automatic geolocation for frequency policy based on neighboring APs" mechanism the default and only policy in their wireless Wi-Fi drivers.
kmeisthax 2y ago
Middleware certainly seems plausible; see also the state of x86 UEFI firmware, which is basically just one company (AMI) selling customized firmware outside of the FOSS coreboot/libreboot world. With how complicated most cellular standards are, I imagine a lot of modem firmware is just one company we've never heard of selling a basic implementation that gets customized for each modem vendor. Keeping the implementation secret as a condition of licensing the patent is not entirely unimaginable. It would be, however, very, very stupid (if you aren't outright evil), and not provide any extra licensing rents to the SEP holders. In the video world they don't do this; because everyone expects that anyone actually shipping a codec is going to pay[0]. But then again this is also cellular firmware; implementing standards owned by Qualcomm. And Qualcomm loves pushing the boundaries of how anticompetitive you can be with legal monopolies before actually violating competition law. They're the ones that saddled the US with "CDMA" "standards"[1] that put half of America's carriers on incompatible networks with phones you couldn't migrate to other networks. (Even other CDMA networks!) If Qualcomm had their way, they'd own LTE and 5G lock, stock, and barrel with the only modems you can buy being buried in a Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC. [0] That's not to say that video SEP owners are particularly happy right now. The head of MPEG insists he was sacked for, among other things, complaining about MPEG's inability to standardize a royalty-free codec under ISO's patent disclosure rules. [1] Including a competing standards body to 3GPP called, I shit you not, 3GPP2.
bigfatkitten 2y ago
Yes, this is precisely what happens. There are decent sized companies, such as Etherstack, who exist to develop and sell wireless protocol stacks to OEMs. https://www.etherstack.com/ https://www.etherstack.com/

burnte 2y ago

> Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware? Contracts and money. > The IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and trade secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and cannot) grant a patent license to those licensed standards-essential patents. It only imperils your implementation of the modem firmware, not the whole patent spec. Publishing the source to the firmware would allow people to make use of patented tech without paying for it even though it would be illegal to do so. Also, your license may simply stipulate that you cannot publish or share your code in anyway outside the company. > To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed code, even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that they are licensing. > Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty fee cap to shield FOSS entities from having to take a license, basically, by paying for them. As you point out here, Cisco is paying for it. They publish open code, and to ensure the LA doesn't come after them, they're paying additional money.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
There's also the possibility of trade secrets being involved. An example hypothetical: Maybe Qualcomm has tons of lab data showing signal performance and integrity for any given channel, band, power level, general environment (urban, suburban, rural), device position, device altitude, etc. You might want to use that data, and algorithms derived from it, to improve your device's battery life. That data obviously cannot be patented, and while the lab data would be copyrighted and not part of the finished product, Qualcomm would understandably be mighty particular about any open-source code implementing the conclusions.
p_l 2y ago
MPEG-LA also explicitly used to (I do not know current state) consider open source "some assembly required" releases to be non-infringing. It was product incorporating the patented tech, i.e. ready to use binaries, that required licensing. Cisco paid the licensing fees to enable easily downloadable h.264 codec for certain projects, but you could legally build it from source yourself. IIRC h.265 had similar licensing
- ksec 2y ago

bigfatkitten 2y ago

Nordic probably doesn't own all of the code, which is a separate issue to the patents.