If you look at Linux Distributions mirror sites USA and other patent limited countries are not shipping the effected parts.

Linux world had to deal with limitation encryption export restrictions from the USA before patents came up. So all distributions already had sister companies in other companies outside the USA to ship anything USA prevented from export or usage by USA laws.

Patents bypass is basically using a system that distrobutions have had in place for the past 15 years to get around limitations on what strength encryption could be exported from the USA.

So restriction does not apply to locations of all the operations of those firms. To prevent legal issues with the old encryption limit those companies outside USA had to legally stand on there own two feet. So yes completely outside USA law. Shock horror right. Linux distrobutions can keep on shipping even if there USA base is shut down.

Ivan about time you get your head around the fact Linux Distributions operate globally so a single countries law does not apply to all the Distributions operations. With bases in many different countries with many different legal requirements. So just ship from a country where is legal.

Yes mirrors in countries without patents contain the patent effected stuff.

Your presume about being subject to USA laws is wrong.

“Again there is no reason for them to be cheap about their users, which is exactly what they are doing.”
Its due to patent holders not wanting to talk with them about only having to pay for countries that are effected by patent law.

Not exactly cheep. Redhat and Linux foundation has no problems buying patent usage out right for FOSS usage globally if the option is offered.

Deal from patent holders is not the right kind of deal so they work around the problem.

Patent holders want to play the cheap card. Not that Redhat and others will pay can we void the patent before paying. Since is stupid to pay for a void patent. Next if the patent is valid buy for one fixed price for everyone.

You didn’t think this through very well. The above listed businesses and non-profits are either based in the United States or do business there and are therefore subject to its laws.

Again there is no reason for them to be cheap about their users, which is exactly what they are doing.

At the same time, you are ready to say that 5% marketshare for WP7 is a failure.

Ah, a tough life you have.

Hm, Mr. Pogson just said that it was absolutely free. You two, please sort the matter out before making public statements.

Except it doesn’t. Zero price didn’t help Linux, didn’t help OpenOffice, doesn’t help LibreOffice. Why should it help some obscure media player, who has nothing else to put on the table? And which happens to run under Windows as well?

Ivan
“It’s not like Red Hat, Canonical, or even SPI (Debian’s legal umbrella) can’t afford to pay license fees for the existing code and meet their legal obligations.”
They don’t have to. Fleundo was created to handle the problem.

Software patents don’t apply in all countries. If you are using a Linux Distribution where software patents don’t apply you don’t have to pay that simple.

Ivan did not not think Linux world might have set up a central clearing house for this problem.

It’s a simple question, Bob.

It’s not like Red Hat, Canonical, or even SPI (Debian’s legal umbrella) can’t afford to pay license fees for the existing code and meet their legal obligations.

Software patents are invalid. SCOTUS will pronounce on that this year, IMHO. Patents are temporary monopolies for new ways of producing goods, not mathematics, logic, language or software. You can claim copyright on a written work but you may not have a patent on it. That USPTO and the courts in the USA does not prevent them returning to their senses. Recently there was progress on that… see USPTO policy:
“Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material. “

see USPTO Bilski Guidance

see the details:
“Factors Weighing Against Eligibility:
• No recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
• Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation.
o Involvement of machine, or transformation, with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or
tangentially related to the performance of the steps, e.g., data gathering, or merely recites a field in
which the method is intended to be applied.
o Machine is generically recited such that it covers any machine capable of performing the claimed
step(s).
o Machine is merely an object on which the method operates.
o Transformation involves only a change in position or location of article.
o “Article” is merely a general concept (see notes below).
• The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature.
o The claim would monopolize a natural force or patent a scientific fact; e.g., by claiming every mode
of producing an effect of that law of nature.
o Law of nature is applied in a merely subjective determination.
o Law of nature is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the
steps.
• The claim is a mere statement of a general concept (see notes below for examples).
o Use of the concept, as expressed in the method, would effectively grant a monopoly over the concept.
o Both known and unknown uses of the concept are covered, and can be performed through any existing
or future-devised machinery, or even without any apparatus.
o The claim only states a problem to be solved.
o The general concept is disembodied.
o The mechanism(s) by which the steps are implemented is subjective or imperceptible. “

Not much room for software in that lot, eh?