[00:00.000 --> 00:14.600] Last year the Commission announced they're going to work on a new package of patent regulations. [00:14.600 --> 00:16.920] We don't yet have the text. [00:16.920 --> 00:21.960] So there was a call for input and people have responded to this so we do have some chance [00:21.960 --> 00:25.920] to give input to the Commission already but that was at the stage where we didn't see [00:25.920 --> 00:28.240] what is actually being proposed. [00:28.240 --> 00:33.440] We still have not seen it, it will be published in April of this year but at this stage we [00:33.440 --> 00:36.080] are already planning because we know this is going to be a big topic. [00:36.080 --> 00:40.760] So what you're going to see right now is the early stage planning of what a campaign that [00:40.760 --> 00:45.240] could help free software deal with software patents could look like in the coming months [00:45.240 --> 00:50.720] and to start it's going to be my colleague here Panos from N Software Patents. [00:50.720 --> 00:53.720] Yeah so hi everyone, I am Panos Alvopoulos. [00:53.720 --> 00:58.880] I have been working on the N Software Patents campaign for a while, for about two years [00:58.880 --> 00:59.880] approximately. [00:59.880 --> 01:06.120] Just to give an overview of the presentation today, I'm going to talk about in general [01:06.120 --> 01:13.440] what's the deal with ACPs and France and a rough overview of case law and then Kiaran [01:13.440 --> 01:21.160] will present the free software toughest problem and five fixes we can think about it. [01:21.160 --> 01:28.600] So what's the deal with ACPs and France, two words that are probably unknown to many. [01:28.600 --> 01:35.840] ACPs stands for standard essential patent and France stands for fair, reasonable and [01:35.840 --> 01:38.440] non-discriminatory. [01:38.440 --> 01:43.520] Just to illustrate what's going on here. [01:43.520 --> 01:50.800] As we all know that in technology standards are very important so if we want devices to [01:50.800 --> 01:58.600] work with each other and we want them to be compatible we need to use a standard, right? [01:58.600 --> 02:07.160] So these standards are usually, the rules for these standards are going to be set up [02:07.160 --> 02:09.800] by standard setting organizations. [02:09.800 --> 02:17.840] So what happens is that for a known standard there are usually patents that are very important [02:17.840 --> 02:19.960] for the standard to work. [02:19.960 --> 02:27.720] So those standards are called standard essential patents and if one wants to participate in [02:27.720 --> 02:32.240] the standard they need to use the patent. [02:32.240 --> 02:39.400] So that person is called implementer and they have to get a license from the SAP holder. [02:39.400 --> 02:44.000] Now of course as we all know a patent is very restrictive to everyone. [02:44.000 --> 02:52.600] So here's what standard setting organizations do, they require from the SAP holders to license [02:52.600 --> 02:58.000] their patents, their ACPs with under front licenses. [02:58.000 --> 03:04.400] Now it sounds great but there are issues. [03:04.400 --> 03:11.560] As we said France stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory but that's a very, very, [03:11.560 --> 03:14.760] very vague term. [03:14.760 --> 03:20.360] First of all it can affect everyone that's working with standards and that includes network [03:20.360 --> 03:26.520] protocols, independent of things, audio-video codecs, the automotive industry and so on [03:26.520 --> 03:28.040] and on. [03:28.040 --> 03:40.280] And the problem is that when the implementers have to use the patents they have to come under [03:40.280 --> 03:49.520] agreements with the SAP holders and the SAP holders they try to charge as much money as [03:49.520 --> 03:56.880] possible and most likely the implementers are not very satisfied with that. [03:56.880 --> 04:02.920] So the real problem is that there's a potential abuse of dominant power, of dominant position [04:02.920 --> 04:08.560] by the SAP holders and the high transaction costs for implementers are simply unsustainable [04:08.560 --> 04:13.480] for SMEs, for small and medium enterprises. [04:13.480 --> 04:22.640] And that in general adds up to the legal uncertainty regarding software patents. [04:22.640 --> 04:32.960] So to be more specific on the way this has been reflected in the courts because what [04:32.960 --> 04:39.800] happens is that when you have an implementer and they come into a disagreement with a patent [04:39.800 --> 04:43.960] holder what happens is that litigation happens. [04:43.960 --> 04:48.720] So they go to the courts and what do the courts say? [04:48.720 --> 04:52.240] Well they try to help as much as possible. [04:52.240 --> 05:00.120] I have a layout here of the courts, of the court decisions that have been relevant and [05:00.120 --> 05:04.000] have been basically the landmark decisions in Europe. [05:04.000 --> 05:08.960] First of all it all started with the German Federal Supreme Court and it started with [05:08.960 --> 05:19.160] a very strict and conservative stance, very pro-ACP holder stance because it basically [05:19.160 --> 05:24.400] had a very strict test for a front defense and the front defense is basically when the [05:24.400 --> 05:33.480] implementer says yes, you are the SAP holder but the money that you charge for that are [05:33.480 --> 05:39.800] way too high for me to actually participate in the market and that's an abuse of your [05:39.800 --> 05:41.800] dominant position. [05:41.800 --> 05:50.240] And the German Federal Supreme Court was more in favor of the patent holders and that was [05:50.240 --> 05:52.720] seen in 2009. [05:52.720 --> 05:57.600] But then what happened is that we had a very important decision from the European Court [05:57.600 --> 06:05.320] of Justice that concerned competition law and it took a more balanced approach. [06:05.320 --> 06:13.680] And then in 2020 there was another decision, actually there was no decision. [06:13.680 --> 06:20.960] There was a German lower court which asked for more clarifications from the European [06:20.960 --> 06:30.840] Court of Justice and unfortunately for everyone the decision was settled, there was no decision. [06:30.840 --> 06:39.000] It was settled out of court so the court had no chance to answer those questions. [06:39.000 --> 06:48.040] To be more specific on what the German Federal Supreme Court said back in 2009, it had a [06:48.040 --> 06:57.200] very strict test and it said the alleged infringer can rely on a competition law defense only [06:57.200 --> 07:00.040] if it does the following two steps. [07:00.040 --> 07:05.080] Only if it unconditionally offers to enter into a license agreement with the SAP holder [07:05.080 --> 07:12.000] and more importantly if it behaves as if it were an actual licensee so that would mean [07:12.000 --> 07:18.680] that it would have to act as if there's already a license and pay royalties and it was up [07:18.680 --> 07:24.840] to the defendant to prove that the conditions above are fulfilled. [07:24.840 --> 07:34.040] What happened though is that in 2014 there were two important commission decisions about [07:34.040 --> 07:40.040] anti-trust issues with Motorola and Samsung and the European Commission stated that a [07:40.040 --> 07:45.640] patent holder abuses its dominant position when having given a front commitment over [07:45.640 --> 07:52.920] an SAP to a standard setting organization it seeks injunction against a willing licensee [07:52.920 --> 08:00.160] and a willing licensee remains free to challenge the validity of the patent or its infringement. [08:00.160 --> 08:04.920] That was very important because the German courts didn't recognize that. [08:04.920 --> 08:13.240] They didn't expect the defendant to give up some fundamental rights like this. [08:13.240 --> 08:28.160] So in about 2015 the European Court of Justice responded to a lower German court because the [08:28.160 --> 08:34.120] German courts recognized that okay there's a difference between what the German federal [08:34.120 --> 08:37.760] Supreme Court says and what the European Commission is doing. [08:37.760 --> 08:44.400] So the European Court of Justice came in and clarified what's going on and it said there's [08:44.400 --> 08:54.160] a very broad test here but it's helpful enough for national courts to expand further. [08:54.160 --> 08:58.760] The SAP holder must alert the implementer in writing of the infringement complained [08:58.760 --> 09:04.640] of by noting the relevant SAP and how it's alleged to be infringed. [09:04.640 --> 09:09.480] The implementer must express a willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on front [09:09.480 --> 09:11.120] terms. [09:11.120 --> 09:17.560] The SAP holder must provide a specific written offer for a license on front terms. [09:17.560 --> 09:22.160] The implementer must diligently respond to that offer in accordance with recognized commercial [09:22.160 --> 09:24.960] practices and in good faith. [09:24.960 --> 09:29.480] And if the implementer does not accept the offer made to it, a counter offer that corresponds [09:29.480 --> 09:31.600] to front terms should be made. [09:31.600 --> 09:38.640] So based on that language you can probably figure out that the courts didn't really solve [09:38.640 --> 09:40.280] any problems. [09:40.280 --> 09:51.240] What they basically helped is to help the companies negotiate better on what front really is. [09:51.240 --> 09:58.720] And you might have guessed from the name of the campaign and so through the patents what [09:58.720 --> 10:05.160] we're trying to do but it's important to follow decisions like this because it's important [10:05.160 --> 10:17.320] to understand how patents work and how a friend can actually affect standards. [10:17.320 --> 10:22.720] And finally just for your information, there are more cases that should be started but [10:22.720 --> 10:25.680] we don't have the time to present them here. [10:25.680 --> 10:31.880] It's the United Kingdom Supreme Court unwired planet versus Huawei in 2020 that concerns [10:31.880 --> 10:33.320] the UK. [10:33.320 --> 10:40.920] And there are two more decisions from the German federal Supreme Court in 2020 that are also [10:40.920 --> 10:43.000] of great importance. [10:43.000 --> 11:03.200] So with that, I conclude my part of the presentation and I give the floor to Kier. [11:03.200 --> 11:09.000] So the first time I came to Brussels was in 2002 and it was to come to Fastem and at that [11:09.000 --> 11:13.080] time Richard Stallman gave the keynote address in the Johnson Theatre and it inspired me [11:13.080 --> 11:17.320] to work on free software policy topics as a priority. [11:17.320 --> 11:23.160] So a few months later then I got interested in software patents in particular and a lot [11:23.160 --> 11:27.120] of people looked at the topic and saw it was a bit daunting and after years people said [11:27.120 --> 11:30.880] to me, you've been working on this for 10 years and there's no progress, how do you [11:30.880 --> 11:31.880] keep your motivation? [11:31.880 --> 11:34.520] And then they said after 15 years, how do you keep your motivation? [11:34.520 --> 11:39.080] And finally I stuck with it and now I can make the joke that after 20 years all of the [11:39.080 --> 11:43.880] software patents that I was worried about have now become invalid. [11:43.880 --> 11:51.360] But of course there are now a new generation of software patents. [11:51.360 --> 11:55.320] When I said I was giving this talk I was asked, oh, can you talk about the unified patent [11:55.320 --> 11:56.320] court? [11:56.320 --> 11:58.400] No, I can't. [11:58.400 --> 12:00.160] Very important but there's no time, sorry. [12:00.160 --> 12:03.160] Can you talk about software patents coming into India via the AI law? [12:03.160 --> 12:06.080] No, I'm sorry, I can't. [12:06.080 --> 12:08.960] Can you talk about the idea of AI writing software patent patents? [12:08.960 --> 12:13.040] Because I think patent applications are such nonsense, I think AI is the perfect thing [12:13.040 --> 12:18.360] to write the next generation of them. [12:18.360 --> 12:20.240] But no, I can't. [12:20.240 --> 12:22.440] Can you talk about the Cyber Resilience Act? [12:22.440 --> 12:26.680] This is going to be massive but no, it's got nothing to do with patents. [12:26.680 --> 12:32.680] So audio video patents are the worst case scenario for software because you have to form a standard [12:32.680 --> 12:33.920] at first off. [12:33.920 --> 12:37.800] You then have to convince all of the manufacturers of hardware that this is worth putting into [12:37.800 --> 12:42.560] their hardware because you cannot do audio video with just software. [12:42.560 --> 12:45.920] Audio video software used to be optimized for decoding because encoding would happen [12:45.920 --> 12:48.880] on some mainframe somewhere and you'd download the video and you'd watch it. [12:48.880 --> 12:52.760] But now with video chat you have to do real-time encoding, transmission, so you need a small [12:52.760 --> 12:57.360] file size, and then decoding and it should be almost real-time. [12:57.360 --> 13:00.600] You convince these hardware manufacturers to put it onto their hardware and then you [13:00.600 --> 13:04.800] have to wait five years because then you have to wait for everyone, the whole world of computer [13:04.800 --> 13:08.080] users to throw out their current hardware and buy a new generation of hardware. [13:08.080 --> 13:12.160] So after five years finally the standard will be hardware accelerated on everyone's computer [13:12.160 --> 13:14.440] and then you can really use it. [13:14.440 --> 13:18.160] If at that point somebody comes along with a patent and says, actually, I own a bit of [13:18.160 --> 13:20.560] that software, there is very little you can do. [13:20.560 --> 13:22.920] You can no longer innovate around the problem. [13:22.920 --> 13:28.800] So software patents on standards are the worst type of patents for software and on video [13:28.800 --> 13:33.240] patent standards they are the worst of the worst. [13:33.240 --> 13:34.320] This is happening already. [13:34.320 --> 13:38.920] We have an audio format opus which is not very famous, however it is a successor to [13:38.920 --> 13:40.640] the AUG audio format. [13:40.640 --> 13:43.040] It is used in a lot of hardware devices. [13:43.040 --> 13:47.560] There is currently a patent pool being formed to threaten the opus audio format. [13:47.560 --> 13:53.360] We have the AV1 video format which is being developed to be freely implementable and already [13:53.360 --> 13:58.080] there has been a request sent to the European Commission to investigate the people working [13:58.080 --> 14:03.840] on this for anti-competitive practices because trying to help each other avoid patent problems [14:03.840 --> 14:09.320] might be a bad thing for some companies. [14:09.320 --> 14:14.040] Before I get into it, I saw yesterday there was published a paper by Andrew Katz and four [14:14.040 --> 14:15.040] other researchers. [14:15.040 --> 14:20.800] I didn't get their names but it is on the HGVC standard in software so I expect that [14:20.800 --> 14:25.040] is very interesting but I will not be talking about it. [14:25.040 --> 14:26.200] There are a lot of topics here. [14:26.200 --> 14:29.480] There was a commission call for input last year. [14:29.480 --> 14:33.760] There were responses from open forum Europe who I currently work for and from open source [14:33.760 --> 14:36.200] initiative Simon. [14:36.200 --> 14:40.640] This however these comments were sent based on not actually knowing what text is going [14:40.640 --> 14:46.040] to be presented so they were kind of general comments on what patent policy could be like. [14:46.040 --> 14:51.480] We still haven't seen the text that is going to be presented by the European Commission [14:51.480 --> 14:54.400] but as I said this is early stage planning for a campaign. [14:54.400 --> 14:58.360] We have to start thinking already about what possibilities we have to fix this, what different [14:58.360 --> 15:02.440] form can it take because when we are talking about policy makers the way it works is you [15:02.440 --> 15:07.560] have to give them a list of different fixes that you are looking for and then they will [15:07.560 --> 15:12.200] say which ones are politically possible and then you have to start trying to maximize [15:12.200 --> 15:14.280] each of the ones that are politically possible. [15:14.280 --> 15:19.040] So I found five starting ideas but this is a discussion document basically. [15:19.040 --> 15:22.560] We can discuss them further as in the coming weeks. [15:22.560 --> 15:26.240] The first idea would be a carve out specific two free software. [15:26.240 --> 15:30.360] A few years ago this might have sounded a bit overly optimistic but now in the Cyber [15:30.360 --> 15:35.360] Resilience Act and the Product Liability Directive there is this text and when we first saw [15:35.360 --> 15:40.840] it we were amazed to see free and open source software should not be covered. [15:40.840 --> 15:42.200] Excellent. [15:42.200 --> 15:46.480] Of course once you start reading it then you realize well there is an objective limitation [15:46.480 --> 15:47.480] here. [15:47.480 --> 15:52.000] You can use this exemption if you are trying to do innovation or research. [15:52.000 --> 15:55.120] There is a commercial activity limitation and we all know that commercial activity has [15:55.120 --> 15:59.680] never been defined and is an endless source of un-clarity for what exactly that means [15:59.680 --> 16:03.680] for software and online activities and it should be exempted. [16:03.680 --> 16:08.240] So a judge will have to interpret whether or not you are allowed to use this exemption [16:08.240 --> 16:12.400] which basically means that nobody can rely, nobody can confidently make use of this exemption [16:12.400 --> 16:13.880] so it's not very useful. [16:13.880 --> 16:18.680] However the fact that this is in a document from the Commission in two proposals for regulations [16:18.680 --> 16:23.760] tells us that inside the Commission something along these lines is acceptable. [16:23.760 --> 16:29.040] They didn't get the wording quite right this time but they are not completely opposed to [16:29.040 --> 16:30.120] this kind of thing. [16:30.120 --> 16:34.640] So this is a starting point, maybe we can do something along these lines. [16:34.640 --> 16:41.000] The second possibility would be a similar end result but from a different starting point [16:41.000 --> 16:44.440] and would be to try and carve industry into two sections. [16:44.440 --> 16:49.560] For example we might find that small and medium business in the manufacturing and pharmaceutical [16:49.560 --> 16:53.680] areas might be perfectly happy with having more patents and might want help from the [16:53.680 --> 16:56.280] Commission to apply for patents and use their patents. [16:56.280 --> 17:00.880] We happen to not like that so maybe we should have a different regime for them and one for [17:00.880 --> 17:02.280] us. [17:02.280 --> 17:07.160] There is already as part of this patent package there is a regulation that is specific to [17:07.160 --> 17:13.160] pharmaceutical patents so the Commission is not opposed to singling out sector by sector. [17:13.160 --> 17:19.000] Our argument can be that our sector is different because we have collaborative models and we [17:19.000 --> 17:20.160] have market solutions. [17:20.160 --> 17:24.640] If you look at the patent clauses of the GPL and the Apache 2.0 license we already have [17:24.640 --> 17:29.080] market solutions so maybe we can tell the European Commission don't interfere with what [17:29.080 --> 17:31.680] we are already fixing. [17:31.680 --> 17:38.600] A third fix and this is still quite early stage is the idea of competition law. [17:38.600 --> 17:44.120] I have always believed there is not enough discussion of how competition law is weakened [17:44.120 --> 17:46.480] by the existence of patents. [17:46.480 --> 17:50.360] The European Commission loves to work on patent law and it is a big topic in the European [17:50.360 --> 17:55.400] Commission but it just seems there is not enough dialogue between people who are enforcing [17:55.400 --> 17:58.520] competition law and people who are working on patent policy. [17:58.520 --> 18:03.760] I think maybe if we could find a way to make it clearer to the European Commission and [18:03.760 --> 18:10.240] the European institutions in general how these two topics interact maybe we could help make [18:10.240 --> 18:15.200] them understand what we are trying to achieve. [18:15.200 --> 18:17.960] The fourth one, there are only five, not going to go on all night. [18:17.960 --> 18:22.280] The fourth one is something that will definitely be discussed because the Commission has mentioned [18:22.280 --> 18:28.680] this in their documents so Fran, at times we think the idea of non-discriminatory that [18:28.680 --> 18:33.800] must help us because we don't want regimes that discriminate against free software. [18:33.800 --> 18:38.760] We need patent regimes that allow for royalty free use of patents. [18:38.760 --> 18:43.120] However, non-discriminatory currently the standard meaning for this is that you don't [18:43.120 --> 18:45.040] discriminate between individuals. [18:45.040 --> 18:48.560] If you have a certain system for working out how much royalties you are going to ask for [18:48.560 --> 18:54.240] you have to apply the same system to each potential licensee. [18:54.240 --> 18:58.800] Or maybe we can expand this, maybe we can work with this term and find a way to talk [18:58.800 --> 19:06.320] about non-discriminatory so that it prevents the patent regime from discriminating against [19:06.320 --> 19:11.040] free software which cannot pay royalty fees because we can't count the copies. [19:11.040 --> 19:15.640] If that doesn't work then of course the word fair it's an even more vague word but maybe [19:15.640 --> 19:22.880] we can do something with this word to talk about how fair should apply to free software. [19:22.880 --> 19:28.840] There's also as part of this patent package there is a regulation coming on compulsory [19:28.840 --> 19:33.800] licensing so maybe that angle can also be used there to ask for something that works [19:33.800 --> 19:39.040] with free software so that would have to be a royalty free, sub-licensable patent license [19:39.040 --> 19:41.400] with no domain limit. [19:41.400 --> 19:50.360] And the last fix, being presented for the first time. [19:50.360 --> 19:53.680] So the whole problem with software patents in Europe has always been that we have a patent [19:53.680 --> 19:58.880] law that says software is not patentable as such and the policy makers when we complained [19:58.880 --> 20:02.240] we don't want software patents they said but it's not patentable look software is not patentable [20:02.240 --> 20:04.400] as such. [20:04.400 --> 20:08.480] The problem was that of course the patent applications were always written as patent [20:08.480 --> 20:13.080] on a limited resource device which interacts with this and there's always a way to make [20:13.080 --> 20:16.720] software sound like it's more than just software as such. [20:16.720 --> 20:19.760] What if we ask them to give an example? [20:19.760 --> 20:26.240] What if we ask them to put this into a patent law on standard essential patents? [20:26.240 --> 20:32.960] The software which reads, transmits or puts data into a data format standard is an example [20:32.960 --> 20:36.560] of software as such. [20:36.560 --> 20:43.280] If we could do this and this is a crazy idea maybe we could find a way to get software [20:43.280 --> 20:49.280] as such to be defined in a concrete way and we could actually start using the idea that [20:49.280 --> 20:53.160] software as such is not patentable. [20:53.160 --> 20:58.120] Now when we used to campaign against software patents the commission because the software [20:58.120 --> 21:01.120] is not patentable as such language was there they said don't worry there's not going to [21:01.120 --> 21:04.600] be American style software patents it's not going to happen. [21:04.600 --> 21:09.400] I would like to try and find out the documents they used to use and I want to find any statements [21:09.400 --> 21:13.000] and things they ever said that explained what their motivation was. [21:13.000 --> 21:18.960] If they were saying that their intention was that data formats for example or compatibility [21:18.960 --> 21:23.560] interoperability which is a massive buzz word now in the European institutions if these [21:23.560 --> 21:28.400] things were not meant to be hampered by software patents then maybe we can say well you know [21:28.400 --> 21:30.480] please clarify this. [21:30.480 --> 21:36.160] Your regulation says you want to reduce the un-clarity give us some clarity on what exactly [21:36.160 --> 21:41.120] software as such is and maybe we can put this into law. [21:41.120 --> 21:43.120] Those are my five fixes. [21:43.120 --> 21:46.200] I don't have a favourite one we don't know which one is going to be acceptable we don't [21:46.200 --> 21:51.160] know what text even we have to insert any of these into but this is something that we [21:51.160 --> 21:57.160] will be well continuing to hold a dialogue on in the coming weeks and months and I hope [21:57.160 --> 22:02.120] this topic gets lots of attention and lots of you get involved. [22:02.120 --> 22:08.480] With that we do have a tool for coordinating work on this and Panas will brief you. [22:08.480 --> 22:11.800] I have a microphone over there. [22:11.800 --> 22:19.640] So if you probably guessed it from the whole presentation there is so much information [22:19.640 --> 22:26.560] to be digested and it's extremely difficult to talk about all of this in 25 minutes but [22:26.560 --> 22:32.760] what we are trying to do with our websites and software patents is to have the central [22:32.760 --> 22:39.440] resource for everything for software patents so that includes case law legislation and [22:39.440 --> 22:41.520] that includes the whole world. [22:41.520 --> 22:47.360] We want to make people not forget software patents like they forgot them like probably [22:47.360 --> 22:56.320] the last 15 years and we try to make everything about software patents let's make them the [22:56.320 --> 23:01.760] headlines let's make software patents something that everyone should be concerned and not [23:01.760 --> 23:09.280] make the copyright the only issue that concerns free software because patents actually concern [23:09.280 --> 23:16.720] not only free software but software in general and with that we would like to thank you for [23:16.720 --> 23:19.720] your attention. [23:19.720 --> 23:29.920] Please try to contribute to these resources it's extremely valuable. [23:29.920 --> 23:30.920] Yes. [23:30.920 --> 23:35.120] Okay we have time for one question and this is going to Simon sorry. [23:35.120 --> 23:43.680] Thank you very much so I'll try and frame this in the form of a question if I can. [23:43.680 --> 23:48.160] One thing I'd like to point out about all of your comments about FRAND is that all of [23:48.160 --> 23:55.440] those lawsuits that you displayed included Etsy as a correspondent because the FRAND [23:55.440 --> 24:00.240] expectation is not a part of law it's a part of the way the specifications the standard [24:00.240 --> 24:06.600] has written and as a consequence anything based on FRAND commitments is on very shifty [24:06.600 --> 24:11.960] ground because there's no real proof that anybody is actually forced to do things on [24:11.960 --> 24:17.160] FRAND terms anyway so I don't like number four. [24:17.160 --> 24:23.440] Number two your carve out I've written a paper on that for OFE and I think that's the one [24:23.440 --> 24:31.440] to go for because there is actually a division between standards that are done that are implementation [24:31.440 --> 24:36.120] based and ones that are requirements based where monetization depends on patents and [24:36.120 --> 24:40.920] so you can find a compromise that will work there and I'd like to invite you to come with [24:40.920 --> 24:47.720] me to an Etsy meeting and meet the people who think we are all crazy batshit crazy idiots [24:47.720 --> 24:53.360] who want to destroy the European economy because that's what they say to me when I say anything [24:53.360 --> 24:57.840] you just said and we're not going to get anywhere with the commission unless we understand their [24:57.840 --> 25:03.000] position and appear to accommodate it even if we think they're the ones that are crazy [25:03.000 --> 25:07.320] and then that implementation paper from Andrew Katz you saw the important thing to know about [25:07.320 --> 25:12.560] is it says it's impossible for an open source implementation to get any licenses to any [25:12.560 --> 25:16.960] patents in any standards because they went and tried for the standard that's mentioned [25:16.960 --> 25:22.560] in the title so that paper isn't a general paper about the topic they went and tried [25:22.560 --> 25:26.840] to go and get friend licenses and they found it was impossible for them to go and secure [25:26.840 --> 25:32.200] friend licenses to any of their standards so this whole thing is based on a false premise [25:32.200 --> 25:38.200] that anyone is going to actually fairly get licenses this is all about entrapping implementers [25:38.200 --> 25:44.280] into the universe of the companies that have rigged the standards at the regulatory captured [25:44.280 --> 25:45.280] standards organizations. [25:45.280 --> 25:54.600] Okay, cool, so let's move to Kota Zürich. [25:54.600 --> 26:00.360] The term friend is in the commission's call for input so it seems although it is not in [26:00.360 --> 26:04.800] European law at the moment there is a regulation from 2012 there is some reference to it but [26:04.800 --> 26:08.480] it's not in general European law but it's in the commission's call for input so it may [26:08.480 --> 26:13.840] be defined and if it is going to be defined then let's define it ourselves. [26:13.840 --> 26:16.840] Thank you. [26:16.840 --> 26:45.840] Thank you.