Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)"
(→Sublicensing and free software licenses: new section) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Whoever made that comment regarding ''not classes'' is incorrect. Private/protected can be applied to members AND classes in C++. As well as C# and probably some other languages. | Whoever made that comment regarding ''not classes'' is incorrect. Private/protected can be applied to members AND classes in C++. As well as C# and probably some other languages. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Sublicensing and free software licenses == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The part that reads "Further, this grant does not include the right to sublicense. That is incompatible with any free software licence and means that only meeting all of the six onerous requirements would actually grant a patent license" needs some expansion or clarification as to why not allowing sublicensing is incompatible with free software licenses. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Consider that GPLv3 explicitly prohibits sublicensing (last sentence of section 2, "Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary."). Section 10 is the section that says when you convey the GPLv3 work, the recipient receives a license from the original licensor. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That seems to indicate that it is OK in a copyright license to prohibit sublicensing yet still be compatible with free software. I don't see why it would be different in a patent license. | ||
Revision as of 10:57, 17 August 2010
Contents
Unusual patent number
It's because it's a reissued patent. The patent number is 05367685.
- Thanks! I'll update the article. Ciaran 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
All trivial patents?
The quoted claims seem to all be completely trivial.
Shouldn't Google be able to get them all invalidated easily? (even without prior art)
- Invalidating is never easy. For one example, see Amazon's 1-click patent. The review process took five full years, and the end result was that it was narrowed but upheld.
- But let's see what we can gather anyway - it could be useful for this case or for a future case. Ciaran 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, looking deeper, the problem is that the parts quoted here (the first claim, which the patent then expands upon) don't seem to very representative of the actual patents, which do have more specific detail.
You should probably remove the quotes and either reproduce the full patent, write a summary or just have a link.
Private / Protected
From the page:
Prior art: This is C++ private / protected.
No, those apply at the level of individual members - not classes.
Whoever made that comment regarding not classes is incorrect. Private/protected can be applied to members AND classes in C++. As well as C# and probably some other languages.
Sublicensing and free software licenses
The part that reads "Further, this grant does not include the right to sublicense. That is incompatible with any free software licence and means that only meeting all of the six onerous requirements would actually grant a patent license" needs some expansion or clarification as to why not allowing sublicensing is incompatible with free software licenses.
Consider that GPLv3 explicitly prohibits sublicensing (last sentence of section 2, "Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary."). Section 10 is the section that says when you convey the GPLv3 work, the recipient receives a license from the original licensor.
That seems to indicate that it is OK in a copyright license to prohibit sublicensing yet still be compatible with free software. I don't see why it would be different in a patent license.
