Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/15/05, Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The Federal
> > Circuit, en banc, characterized one defendant's reliance on a similar
> > statistic (offered by their counsel and apparently relied on in good
> > faith to the extent that that means anything) as "flagrant disregard
> > of presumptively valid patents without analysis" -- and I can find no
> > better words for it.
> I am not inclined to give any weight to the Federal Circuit statement you
> quoted given that it seems to be from before the rejection of the "No legal
> opinion == wilful infringement" assumption made by that Circuit. As a matter
> of fact, a ridiculously large number of the patents granted by the US Patent
> Office these days are obviously invalid.
Er, that's a quote from the very opinion that breached stare decisis
in order to dispose of the "adverse inference" rule. If you had a
later revision of the law (statutory or judicial) in mind, now would
be a good time to cite it.
> >But it's still no basis
> >for a claim that you have, or anyone else has, exercised "due care"
> >with regard to any particular patent, let alone a suite of dozens that
> >has withstood the kind of scrutiny that Fraunhofer's has.
> Perhaps "due care" would be sufficiently exercised by the following: Looking
> at the "mp3 patent" titles, none of them claim to cover decoding.
> Anyway, Fraunhofer's patents are all invalid in Europe under the European
> Patent Convention, which prohibits patents on mathematics. Perhaps it's time
> to revive non-US for distribution of mp3 decoders.
Do you have opinion of competent counsel in support of that assertion?
If the patent that I picked to look at closely is any indication, I
doubt that the European Patent Convention invalidates it -- but I am
not qualified to judge, and I suspect that neither are you.