Unfortunately patent offices are using loopholes that reintroduce software patents. Patent law says that a pure software patent is not possible, it has to be combined with a specific hardware application to make it an invention. So they fill in a patent for "XX implemented on a hardware operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water.". That's essentially a software patent.

> operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water

Thunderbirds are Go!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_mBUaPsX6o

> So they fill in a patent for "XX implemented on a hardware operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water.".

I'm glad my servers are operating in a deep undersea cave.

That sounds like patent trolls shenanigans.

You may have heard about a little thing called MP3? Basically, Fraunhofer in Germany filed for (software) patents in the US. They made sure to wait some time for MP3 to become a thing before they started going after people and collect royalties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing,_ownership,_and_...

Ha, you're misremembering, but it's been a long time so I don't begrudge you.

Fraunhofer is a research institution. They didn't really do licencing, that's why they never went after anyone.

Then Thomson joined the venture (wouldn't you know it, French!) and the fun with litigation got started

Not trying to protect Frauenhofer there at all, if they didn't smell opportunity they wouldn't have teamed up with Thomson after all... But I think the trend is very clear. Germans are generally a lot worse at the litigation game then the french. Historically that makes sense, but it's definitely surprising that it still holds true in modern times

Fraunhofer absolutely does licensing. That is one of their main sources of income. Also,your retelling of the story is off: https://www.4ipcouncil.com/features/mp3-digital-audio-coding

I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Fraunhofer didn't do licencing before joining up with Thomson. That's why - back in the 90s - there were no litigation anywhere even though everyone ignored their patents.

Then Frauenhofer joined up with Thomson and that's where your understanding joins up with reality: now the Frauenhofer does licencing and sues anyone that's not paying them.

My whole comment was a technical tidbit - maybe meaningless from today's perspective... But the previous view interpreted a forward thinking strategy with the monetization of mp3 that just wasn't there

I feel your argument is shifting. Also, it was Fraunhofer that was threatening developers at the end of the 90s not Thomson. Fraunhofer will very aggressively defend their patents/licenses.

I think what GP is saying is that, upon Fraunhofer's licensing of their technologies to Thomson, Thomson demanded (perhaps contractually) that Fraunhofer defend their patents so that Thomson could actually "get something" for having licensed those patents.

This is pretty common when a company exclusively licenses a patent: they demand that the patent holder sue anyone using the tech who isn't them, so that they actually benefit in the market from the exclusivity. Without that enforcement, the money they were paying for exclusivity would be for nothing.

Thomson just made this kind of arrangement in the context of a non-exclusive license — getting Fraunhofer to start legally enforcing their patent rights at all, so that Thomson and whoever else licenses Fraunhofer's patents could benefit in the market from having licensed the patents, by ensuring that non-licensees aren't getting to use the patented tech for free.

In the US, such an arrangement is unnecessary (to the point that it might be causing a miscommunication in this conversation!), since patent holders tend to legally protect their patents all on their own, suing non-licensees for use of the patented tech even when there are no licensees demanding to "get the benefit they paid for." In Europe, patents aren't sued over by default, with enforcement instead only beginning when the patent is licensed and the licensee demands enforcement so that they can benefit.

> I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

They don't do this sort of thing... oh wait, they do.

But we are still wrong to judge their character by their own actions, because... evil French people made them do it?

> Clearly this is an attempt to prevent similar patents from being weaponised against them in the US.

Why do we assume that Mistral is a "good guy" protecting themselves? I'm not sure they necessarily are. Could just be trying to grab any ground they can.

I mean, maybe they are the "good guy", but I don't think we know either way.

Even if it’s good now, three to five years down the line there’s a 50% chance it’s sold for scraps and this may end up in the hands of a patent troll.