[opendtv] Re: 8VSB Patents running out?
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:33 -0700
In other words, it was "tying" the lower rate -- which Dolby knew they would
welch on -- to a Canadian patent that it needed.
This is the second federal case I know of were Dolby welched on a licensing
deal.
Makes you just want to run and out and license things to Dolby, doesn't it?
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Schubin" <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:44 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 8VSB Patents running out?
> It wasn't about enforceability of the Canadian patent. The deal was
> supposed to be that a lower royalty on the U.S. patent would be
> appropriate as part of a package deal including the later-expiring
> patent. The ruling was that, when the U.S. patent expired, so did any
> licensing deal associated with it, even if it was tied to the later
patent.
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>
>
> Allen Le Roy Limberg wrote:
> > The suit was brought after the U. S. patent expired, so its
enforceability
> > against third parties was not in issue. The U. S. court lacks
jurisdiction
> > to make a Canadian patent unenforceable in the Canadian courts.
> >
> > Al
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Schubin" <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:42 PM
> > Subject: [opendtv] Re: 8VSB Patents running out?
> >
> >
> >
> >> No. The tie-in in Scheiber was BEFORE the patent expired, the theory
> >>
> > being that a lower royalty would be justified by a tie-in to a
> > later-expiring patent (in Canada, I seem to recall).
> >
> >> TTFN,
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>> From: Allen Le Roy Limberg <allimberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Apr 16, 2007 5:33 PM
> >>> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 8VSB Patents running out?
> >>>
> >>> Scheiber v. Dolby treated the issue after the patent had expired and
> >>>
> > there
> >
> >>> were no other patents tied to the original.
> >>> LG's licensing offer, if indeed it was as rumored, risks a court
finding
> >>>
> > the
> >
> >>> later patents to be unenforceable.
> >>>
> >>> Al
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Mark Schubin" <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:21 PM
> >>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 8VSB Patents running out?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I agree. See Scheiber v. Dolby.
> >>>> http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0005.html
> >>>>
> >>>> TTFN,
> >>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Allen Le Roy Limberg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The scuttlebutt is there is a tying arrangement that taking a
license
> >>>>>
> >>> under
> >>>
> >>>>> 8VSB patents & EVSB entails agreement to take EVSB license until end
> >>>>>
> > of
> >
> >>>>> their term. In my opinion that is an illegal tying arrangement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Al Limberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
