Comments on: MPEG Issues Resolution on Type-1 (Royalty-Free) Standardization http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/ My blog Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:40:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rob Glidden http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Rob Glidden Wed, 26 May 2010 22:08:33 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-653 Petter: For a summary of grace periods and novelty requirements in multi-country patent filings you may want to look at "Patent Novelty Requirements of the World and Strategic Foreign Patent Procurement Practices" at http://zilkakotab.com/PDFs/publication1.pdf. Note that US changed during the mid 1990s (due to WTO), and this impacted the video codec patent domain since patenting and standardization was underway during that period. Petter:

For a summary of grace periods and novelty requirements in multi-country patent filings you may want to look at “Patent Novelty Requirements of the World and Strategic Foreign Patent Procurement Practices” at http://zilkakotab.com/PDFs/publication1.pdf. Note that US changed during the mid 1990s (due to WTO), and this impacted the video codec patent domain since patenting and standardization was underway during that period.

]]> By: Petter http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Petter Wed, 26 May 2010 16:06:00 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-652 Sure I know that but that's not what I was wondering, but I mean normally it's the filing time of each application of the same patent application that counts, you can file something in Sweden in 2000 and the same thing in US 2003 for example. Or wise versa. Patents aren't only sought and applied for in one country. Sure I know that but that’s not what I was wondering, but I mean normally it’s the filing time of each application of the same patent application that counts, you can file something in Sweden in 2000 and the same thing in US 2003 for example. Or wise versa. Patents aren’t only sought and applied for in one country.

]]> By: Rob Glidden http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-650 Rob Glidden Wed, 26 May 2010 04:09:02 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-650 Mitch: Yes, that looks like a typo in the original MPEG report, I think the intent was to estimate that the specs (or some relevant drafts) were published in 1993 and 1994. Rob Mitch:

Yes, that looks like a typo in the original MPEG report, I think the intent was to estimate that the specs (or some relevant drafts) were published in 1993 and 1994.

Rob

]]> By: Rob Glidden http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Rob Glidden Wed, 26 May 2010 04:05:23 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-649 Petter: There is now a lot of harmonization because the foundation of WTO normalized patents at 20 years from filing, and filing time frames have been long harmonized by the Paris Convention. Rob Petter:

There is now a lot of harmonization because the foundation of WTO normalized patents at 20 years from filing, and filing time frames have been long harmonized by the Paris Convention.

Rob

]]> By: Petter http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-612 Petter Fri, 07 May 2010 15:02:16 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-612 How about patents filed in other countries at a later date? US patents might run out by then, but what about the rest of the world? How about patents filed in other countries at a later date?

US patents might run out by then, but what about the rest of the world?

]]> By: Mitch Skinner http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/comment-page-1/#comment-605 Mitch Skinner Sun, 02 May 2010 15:38:31 +0000 http://www.robglidden.com/?p=1527#comment-605 The kyoto report says that "parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 were published in 2013 and 2014" but that's not right, is it? Maybe it's supposed to say that patents on parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 are expiring in those years? The kyoto report says that “parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 were published in 2013 and 2014″ but that’s not right, is it? Maybe it’s supposed to say that patents on parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 are expiring in those years?

]]>