[Patents] patents on ITU-proposals (g.729)

[yann.dietrich@rd.francetelecom.com (DIETRICH Yann FTRD/VAT/ISS)]

It is a general question about standards, ITU policy is very closed to
others patent policies like ISO, ETSI. Such policies are very important =
for
interoperability because patent holders have to license their essential
patents under fair and reasonable conditions. ( and for patents holders =
too
because the compliance with a standard implies the infringement of =
their
essential patents for such standard ). Another important point is the
obligation to set up patent pools to make easier the access to all the
patents in the case of several patents holders, for example, in DVB
standard. In the case of several patents, it is not very easy to sign a
license with 10 patents holders, it takes a long time and the costs is
important.=20

But it is clear, also, that discussions in ITU IPR group or in other
standardization organization show me that opensource or free software =
issues
are not well known or more in such groups. But it is not general and I =
think
that policies like in W3C or IETF are more compliant with opensource
constraints.=20

Regards,=20

-----------------------------
Yann Dietrich=20
IP/Licensing Legal Counsel=20
France Telecom R&D / VAT=20
member of the editorial board of http://www.juriscom.net=20
homepage: http://www.chez.com/ydietrich
=20

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jean-Paul Smets [mailto:jp@smets.com]
> Envoy=E9 : jeudi 15 novembre 2001 09:29
> =C0 : Kristoff Bonne; patents@aful.org
> Objet : Re: [Patents] patents on ITU-proposals (g.729)
>=20
>=20
> Your question depends on
>       - ITU rules
>       - national laws
>=20
> It is a very general question, which has not even been=20
> properly solved by=20
> people at the EU in charge of software patents. Because they=20
> do not want to=20
> create limitations to patents, they do not want to include=20
> serious provisions=20
> for interoperability.
>=20
> For example, if we suppose that software patents are legal in=20
> France from a=20
> court point of view, we have
>       - one law stating that interoperability should always=20
> be achievable
>       - one law that states that there are no compulsory=20
> licences required if the=20
> patentee implements it (the law actually states it reversly)
>=20
> It also likely that ITU rules includ RAND patent policy (fair =
access).
>=20
> I would think it this case that any software maker can get a=20
> license at a=20
> fair fee.
>=20
> The only ones which are in trouble are the free software=20
> publishers in=20
> France since they are not protected by "first amendment" as=20
> they are in the=20
> US.
>=20
> There are potential ways to try to circumvent this issue. For=20
> the time being,=20
> a reasonable way may could be to consider that such patents=20
> are not valid in=20
> France which is the case according to current case law from=20
> national courts.
>=20
> Of course, there is always the cross-licensing way which may allow to =

> exchange patent licenses with MS rather than pay.
>=20
> JPS.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>=20