|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
The right for codec-manufacturers to distribute encoders and the right for movie
makers to distribute for-pay movies are priced and sold separately. The fee that
a codec maker pays does not include a license to distribute movies made from the
codec, therefore that right is not exhausted by their license.
In other words, MPEG-LA's lawyers figured out how to distribute the fees across
two groups of users of the patented technologies without running into the
restrictions of patent exhaustion. That's one of the things lawyers are for -
finding the loophole in the letter of the law to make more money for their
clients.
And that's why it is not so simple to call out "patent exhaustion" in
this MMP case - If it does come up in the case, I'm sure there will be arguments
from the lawyers on both sides as to why it does or does not apply.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|