Rakshat,
I'm not a lawyer so take my advice with caution.
> We sell a device with no 'working' MP3 capablities but a preinstalled Music
> player. The music player can take plugins and its website visibly recommends
> downloading a plugin that enables MP3. Is the seller ok in this situation re
> MP3 patents?
Is the website that recommends (and links) to the MP3 plugin operated by the
seller? If so it's the seller who is still selling an MP3 capable device.
Take Openmoko as an example. In order for Openmoko not to be affected, it
would need to ship devices without the ability to play MP3 pre-installed.
If there is an installer, Openmoko would have the responsibility to make
sure MP3 cannot be installed. None of the websites operated by Openmoko
could have instructions or links how to enable MP3.
If Openmoko operates a wiki, and the wiki, editable by anyone, has
instructions or links how to enable MP3, then one could argue that
Openmoko needs to take that down as soon as it finds out about it.
You could argue that because the wiki can be edited by anyone
at any time, constant monitoring is not possible. But that still would not
free Openmoko from the responsibility of keeping even that resource it
operates (the wiki) free from patent violations.
So basically - if you want to protect yourself or your company from being
sued by a patent holder, you need to make sure none of the resources you
control violates the patent.
If there is a website out there somewhere explaining how to enable MP3 on
your device, and people find that website with Google, I think you are safe.
If they find it via a link from a wiki you operate, it's a very close call,
but if you take down the link immediately upon finding out about it, you
should be safe.
Again: I'm not a lawyer. The details may vary from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Lawyers also know how to stay in business :-)
Wolfgang
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:38:44PM +0530, rakshat hooja wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Wolfgang Spraul <
[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > Rakshat,
> >
> > > > Actually Mplayer plays the MP3 with the user installed plugin (libmad
> > or
> > > eqvalent). Intone is just the frontend for Mplayer so no patent probs
> > with
> > > it
> >
> > Yes but we have to be careful that MP3 doesn't 'sneak in' somewhere.
> > The moment anybody is selling a FreeRunner 'capable' of playing MP3, the
> > patent guys have a case. 'Capable' can be a series of steps, including
> > installing some software, etc.
> > However, the moment those steps involve a resource out of control of the
> > seller of the FreeRunner (say a random Internet URL), they have no case.
> >
> > Now with the vast pool of free software, what can easily happen is that
> > MP3,
> > MP4 etc. 'sneaks into' the product. Then someone downstream forgets that
> > it's
> > there, or it's very hard to remove, and falls into the trap.
> >
> >
> Yes I did follow the Openmoko Mp3 patent issues a long while back.
>
> I just wanted to ask you if things are ok re MP3 patents in the following
> scenario
>
> We sell a device with no 'working' MP3 capablities but a preinstalled Music
> player. The music player can take plugins and its website visibly recommends
> downloading a plugin that enables MP3. Is the seller ok in this situation re
> MP3 patents?
>
> Rakshat
> _______________________________________________
> support mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/support_______________________________________________
support mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/support
