Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Fri, 2024-07-26 at 16:11 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:02:27AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado
> wrote:
[...]
> > Describing how they implement those algorithms is a patent
> > minefield and their differentiating factor.

Just on this argument: The Patent Shield around Linux provided by OIN
is pretty strong and allows us (and entities that contribute to Linux)
to ignore most patent problems because someone else is looking out for
them.  OIN is actually free to join if any company would like to
benefit directly from the Linux Patent Shield:

https://openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/member-benefits/


> Those are also arguments I've heard many times before. The
> differentiating factor for cameras today is mostly in userspace ISP
> control algorithms, and nobody is telling vendors they need to open
> all that.
> 
> When it comes to patents, we all know how software patents is a
> minefield, and hardware is also affected. I can't have much sympathy
> for this argument though, those patents mostly benefit the largest
> players in the market, and those are the ones who currently claim
> they can't open anything due to patents.

In order to get a patent, the claimed invention has to be made public,
so if they hold the patent there should be no problem.  If there is a
problem opening something because it infringes on someone else's patent
and they might see it, then OIN, above, is usually a good answer if the
patent is owned by another ecosystem contributor or an OIN signatory. 
For patent contortia (like MPEG) and patent trolls, it's more
problematic, but, again, OIN can provide help.

Regards,

James