Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion.

[James Bottomley]

[e-mail] said:
> Uh, that's quite a lot of lawyer language, something like this is
> already difficult to understand in the native language. Could you
> point me to the relevant section, I misunderstood? I couldn't find it.

There is no relevant section, I'm afraid.  My basic point is that the only 
limitation on how a patent holder licenses their patent in the US is likely to 
come from the US DoJ Antitrust division.  This document lays out the ground 
rules the US DoJ applies in coming to the conclusion that an antitrust probe 
is warranted.  If it helps, I don't think the FSMlabs open patent licence 
would fall foul of any of the DoJ guidelines for instituting an antitrust 
probe.

A summary of the document *from the point of view of a patent holder* only is 
available in the other document I referred to,

http://www.whepatent.com/opensource.pdf

Section V. A. Antitrust, which lays out the nine "no-no's" of patent 
licensing.  Note, the idea is if the patent owner obeys all of the nine 
"no-no's", they're generally safe from antitrust, but the converse is not 
necessarily true (you can violate them and still might not be subject to an 
antitrust probe).

Perhaps, if you want to become more generally familiar with patent law in the 
US, one of the other internet sites (w.g. http://www.patents.com) may be of 
help.  Remember, your average patent lawyer charges from $200-$500 an hour.  
If patent law and its application were easy, we wouldn't be paying those type 
of rates!

James