3 ms·

> 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

by 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
  Exactly. Cisco is paying for the binary provided. Not the source code. There are plenty of patented and open source. Every H.264, H.265, H.266 Encoder and Decoder in existence and used. There are also plenty of open source 4G and 5G software implementation. I sometimes wonder if I should just give up the fight for patent misinformation. On HN it is very binary, either good or bad. And all patents and Ads are evil.

by burnte 2y ago

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
Exactly. Cisco is paying for the binary provided. Not the source code. There are plenty of patented and open source. Every H.264, H.265, H.266 Encoder and Decoder in existence and used. There are also plenty of open source 4G and 5G software implementation. I sometimes wonder if I should just give up the fight for patent misinformation. On HN it is very binary, either good or bad. And all patents and Ads are evil.