Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Yeti wrote in -
september.org: On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin 'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of his invention to the public in return for legal protection and the exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting his invention commercially. It does not prevent others from studying the invention and designing improvements and even patenting those improvements if they meet the required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible to exploit those improvements without the permission of the holder of the original patent (and vice versa). Whether an individual may build a patented device for personal 'research' purposes will depend on the patent law in the country where the patent was granted. Which means it's not amateur radio. I agree. Hell, even the name is a registered trademark of Icom. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:54:46 +0000 (UTC)
Custos Custodum wrote: In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin 'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of his invention to the public in return for legal protection and the exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting his invention commercially. It does not prevent others from studying the invention and designing improvements and even patenting those improvements if they meet the required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible to exploit those improvements without the permission of the holder of the original patent (and vice versa). Whether an individual may build a patented device for personal 'research' purposes will depend on the patent law in the country where the patent was granted. The problem is that with something like AMBE, which is an algorithm, the patents actually only apply to a few absolutely crucial operations in the encoding/decoding but the text of the patent is as vague as possible so that the patent can then be as widely applied as possible and thus cover many alternative ways of doing the same thing. It's nothing more than legalised extortion in reality, the existence of the patent reveals very little to anybody because it's been written to avoid doing exactly that. So the idea of the protection given balancing the revelation of commercially beneficial information has disappeared into the mists of time and patents are now used as a way to tie your competitors up in legal knots even in the case of obvious and trivial claims. Now suppose that someone reverse engineered AMBE and made it available to radio amateurs by putting the information into the public domain. DVSI would have to take action to prevent this, because by not doing so they would be undermining their own patent since failing to defend against an infringing implementation could easily lead to the patent becoming worthless. -- Brian Morrison |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is | Digital | |||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is | Homebrew | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave |