Newshot Synaptics patent claims stop work on DisplayLink drivers
[LWN subscriber-only content]
Welcome to LWN.net The following subscription-only content has been made available to you by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing to LWN. Thank you for visiting LWN.net!
Welcome to LWN.net
The following subscription-only content has been made available to you by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing to LWN. Thank you for visiting LWN.net!
Mike Lothian owns a docking station (or dock) that uses a DisplayLink chipset that had, at least in his opinion, subpar performance on Linux. He decided to try improving the Linux driver, with LLM assistance, but ran into one problem that he could not solve—so he asked for help, hoping that Synaptics's developers would lend a hand. (DisplayLink was acquired by Synaptics in 2022.) Rather than help him in improving the driver, however, the Synaptics legal team responded with patent infringement claims, a demand that he cease unauthorized implementation of DisplayLink technology, and threats of expensive legal penalties. For now, it appears that Linux users of the company's docks will have to continue to live without feature parity with other platforms.
Synaptics and Displaylink
The dock that he was trying to support is a Dell device that connects to a system via USB 3 and allows users to connect multiple monitors and other devices to their computer. It provides its DisplayLink Manager (DLM) software for Linux for the devices via an APT repository for Ubuntu.
The company only provides DLM software in binary form, and only for x86-based platforms. The software is proprietary, but the company does maintain an open-source, out-of-tree kernel module that is included with DLM, the Extensible Virtual Display Interface (EVDI) project. It provides a driver that's compatible with Linux DRM and allows users to manage their docked displays with standard tools used for display settings, such as xrandr or GNOME and KDE Plasma's utilities.
A short article explains why the company has not released source code for DLM: the software uses a proprietary graphics technology called DL3 to create a compressed stream of the various channels (e.g., USB, DisplayLink video, audio) over a communication channel (USB 3 in this case) and decode it again for output to the user's devices.
Unfortunately, the vendor-supplied software did not work well for Lothian. I spoke and chatted with him via Signal while writing this article; he said that the driver kept crashing under Linux, so he decided to use his Claude subscription to try to develop a new driver and support software.
Vino
He posted the first patch series for Vino—his Rust-based DRM/KMS driver—to the kernel's dri-devel list as an RFC on June 17. Lothian noted that it was in an incomplete state, and asked for help with a blocker that he had run into trying to communicate with the dock's control plane. "If you have knowledge of the DisplayLink DL3 control-plane engagement sequence, or ideas for isolating a whole-bus timing/ordering property a per-channel diff cannot see, help would be very welcome." He received feedback from a few developers, including guidance from Danilo Krummrich to rework the driver to use the Rust KMS bindings, but no advice specific to the problem he was trying to solve.
Lothian also opened an issue on the EVDI GitHub repository on June 17. It explained the work he'd done so far, outlined the approach in trying to reverse-engineer the DL3 protocol, provided links to his GitHub repository with the Vino code, and asked for clarification on a few issues. There was no reply to his issue.
He also reached out to Łukasz Spintzyk of Synaptics directly by email; his correspondence with the company between July 5 and October 7 is available in this PDF compiled by Lothian. He noted that he had found a few bugs in EVDI and opened a pull request (that went unreviewed for several months), and also asked for assistance where he was blocked on Vino. On July 20, he received a reply, not from Spintzyk, but from Michal Lukaszek of Synaptics:
The reason I'm writing is that DisplayLink is not an open standard. The protocol, codec, and other technologies used by DisplayLink devices are proprietary to Synaptics and are protected by a substantial portfolio of patents in a number of jurisdictions, including the UK. From what you've published, it appears that the VINO project is progressing beyond interoperability work and toward implementing technology that we believe is covered by those patents. While many developers understandably focus on avoiding copyrighted source code, patent law is different. An independently written or clean-room implementation does not necessarily avoid patent infringement if it implements patented inventions.
The reason I'm writing is that DisplayLink is not an open standard. The protocol, codec, and other technologies used by DisplayLink devices are proprietary to Synaptics and are protected by a substantial portfolio of patents in a number of jurisdictions, including the UK.
From what you've published, it appears that the VINO project is progressing beyond interoperability work and toward implementing technology that we believe is covered by those patents. While many developers understandably focus on avoiding copyrighted source code, patent law is different. An independently written or clean-room implementation does not necessarily avoid patent infringement if it implements patented inventions.
Lukaszek said it was entirely possible that Lothian was unaware of the "intellectual property landscape surrounding DisplayLink", so he wanted to make him aware now rather than "have the situation become more formal later". Lothian lives in Scotland and has a ".co.uk" email address, which explains why the email made reference to the UK.
Cease and desist
On August 17, Andrew Bateman, an assistant general council of intellectual property for Synaptics, sent a cease-and-desist notice. The letter stated that Lothian had not "substantially responded" to Lukaszek's communication, and had continued with "public statements and further development activities". It included an appendix with a list of 125 patents that "cover fundamental aspects of DisplayLink's architecture and operation", but did not specify which patents might be infringed by the work.
Synaptics included a list of eight demands it expected immediate compliance with, including ceasing development of "any software or other implementation that infringes any Synaptics patent", withdrawing submissions of materials "made to Linux kernel maintainers, mailing lists, code-hosting platforms, package maintainers, distributions, or any other person or organization", and to identify in writing every location "in which the relevant materials have been published, submitted, stored, or distributed". It also demanded that he provide Synaptics with a signed confirmation, by August 28, that he had complied with its demands.
Lothian, instead, posted version three of his Vino work for the DisplayLink docks to the dri-devel list on August 26. He said that the previous two versions had "never lit a panel", but the new work could control three generations of DL3 docks without any vendor software. There were no substantive reviews of the patch set posted to the list, though there were some automated reviews from Sashiko.
On August 27, Lothian responded to Bateman and asked him to elaborate on the patents that Synaptics thought were being infringed. "A claim chart mapping the relevant claims to the relevant code would make it much easier for me to understand and properly respond to your concerns."
He also expressed confusion about Synaptics's position that his work was being treated as patent infringement. Synaptics is a member of the Open Invention Network (OIN), which was created to help open-source developers and vendors deal with the threats of expensive patent litigation. It holds a large, cross-licensed portfolio that serves to provide patent protection to individuals, open-source projects, and large vendors alike. Lothian said that he was now an OIN licensee as well, and he thought that it was supposed to "reduce exactly this sort of patent problem around Linux and open source software".
He asked Bateman to explain how Synaptics claims "interact with our respective OIN commitments", and expressed a desire to sort things out with Synaptics constructively. "I don't think a public dispute between Synaptics and an individual open source developer would be particularly helpful for either of us, especially within the Linux and open source communities".
Lothian did not think he could "reasonably provide the signed undertaking" Synaptics had demanded by August 28 without understanding which patent claims it was alleging. He asked for an extension to the deadline. There was no response from Bateman, so Lothian sent a follow-up email on September 18. He said he was concerned there was no acknowledgment to his last email, and wondered it was safe to assume he could continue his work. He had been running the Vino driver himself for quite a while, and was eager to move it upstream without having patent threats hanging over the work.
Bateman responded the next day and said that he should be concerned:
As you previously requested, we have been documenting your ongoing patent infringement by mapping your Vino driver to specific claims of our DisplayLink patents. I will provide this claim mapping documentation to you within the next two weeks. I will also be sending to you our demand for substantial monetary compensation to recoup the cost and effort required to create such documentation of your infringing acts. I previously gave you the opportunity to stop your infringement, but you decided to push back and not heed my warnings, and so now we are escalating as we deem appropriate.
The letter continued to claim that Lothian would be "single-handedly eviscerating DisplayLink's competitive advantage in this crowded market by educating our competitors and other third parties as to how we implement our proprietary technology". He said that DisplayLink is not a member of OIN, and none of its technology is licensable through OIN or any other organization.
Bateman sent a follow-up letter, dated October 5, that included two claim charts for UK patents: GB2484736B ("Display control device") and GB2485613B ("Image generation"), both filed in 2010 and published in 2012. He reiterated Synaptics's demands from its previous letter, and said that the deadline was now October 11; failure to comply would result in the company seeking "monetary compensation from you in the amount of US$25,000 to recoup the costs and effort required to create the attached documentation of your infringing acts". That amount would be increased by $25,000 each week until the company's demands were complied with.
Lothian responded the next day, by email, to say that he was on vacation, and would not be back home until October 13. He asked for an extension of the deadline to return home and go through the claim charts "ideally with someone qualified to help me read them". Bateman replied that Synaptics would agree to extend the deadline to October 18, though no further extensions would be granted. He reiterated that "DisplayLink is not a member of OIN" and none of its technology was licensable through OIN.
OIN to the rescue?
Synaptics is a member of OIN, and is listed in the community directory. In addition to joining OIN, Lothian had reached out to the organization to try to solicit its help and has been in communication with some of the staff there. OIN indicated that it would look into the matter and see if he had any protection as an OIN member. That process took longer than Lothian hoped, though OIN did eventually provide its conclusion.
OIN's portfolio covers a wide range of software that matches its Linux System Definition, but it does not cover everything that might be implemented for a Linux system. In particular, its definition specifies that codecs ("a component of a program capable of performing transformations of a video, still image or audio data stream or signal") are not covered unless specifically mentioned in this list of components.
I spoke briefly to OIN CEO Keith Bergelt on October 23, shortly after OIN staff informed Lothian of the result of their research. Bergelt said that OIN's conclusion was that, since codecs are explicitly not covered by OIN's Linux System Definition, its protections did not extend to Lothian's attempted kernel contributions. OIN had recommended that Lothian reach out to a lawyer in the UK, and provided a recommendation.
Status
Unfortunately, that referral did not pan out, Lothian said. He has not given up entirely, but he has taken down the GitHub repository to comply with Synaptics's demands. For now, he may continue working on some of the components that are not affected by the patent claims, but the work on Vino will not be submitted to the kernel. "Vino itself has to remain local until this is sorted out, I just can't afford to defend myself against Synaptics."
Perhaps amusingly, Lothian told me that someone from Synaptics finally replied to the pull request on October 7. Lothian told me he does not intend to follow up on the comments: "You can't threaten to sue me and then say 'can you update your pull request?'"
For the time being, Synaptics has succeeded in shutting down an effort to improve the way DisplayLink docks work with Linux. It is an unpleasant reminder that, while much of the current conversations in open-source communities are concerned with LLM-driven development, software patents still pose problems for free-software developers and users.
Surely there is plenty of very old prior art on these?
Posted Nov 11, 2026 11:56 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)
Surely there is plenty of very old prior art on these?
Posted Nov 11, 2026 12:19 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (1 responses)
Surely there is plenty of very old prior art on these?
Posted Nov 11, 2026 21:27 UTC (Wed) by willy (subscriber, #9762) [Link]
Anybody want a Foldable Triple Monitor?
Posted Nov 10, 2026 16:29 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
I bought $SUBJECT last month, expecting it to run well enough on my Linux laptop.
No such luck. Obviously, Synaptics wants to be on our boycott lists.
Now I only need to find a Windows or Mac user to sell the thing to …
… or found/join an underground network for stealth driver development. Kernel driver development on Radicle?
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 16:42 UTC (Tue) by ianmcc (subscriber, #88379) [Link] (9 responses)
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 16:54 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (1 responses)
I use AI for lots of things, because it saves a lot of time, which is becoming short for me...
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:38 UTC (Tue) by gspr (subscriber, #91542) [Link]
- is without sharing. Sharing knowledge and code and understanding is core to the hacker and FOSS ethos. How can you so gleefully ditch that?
- very often relies on an opaque, non-free third party that can censor or cut you off at any moment. I can't think of anything more antithetical to the hacker and FOSS ethos.
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 18:46 UTC (Tue) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link] (6 responses)
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:24 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (4 responses)
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:50 UTC (Tue) by gspr (subscriber, #91542) [Link] (2 responses)
I think LLM assistance in reverse engineering is one of the few good LLM usecases, to be clear. But the proposed approach after that is pure capitulation!
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 11, 2026 3:53 UTC (Wed) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 11, 2026 18:19 UTC (Wed) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
On the bright side, the documentation will become useful to everyone, once the patents expire.
LLM prompts
Posted Nov 11, 2026 9:49 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Reverse engineering
Posted Nov 11, 2026 2:50 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 10, 2026 18:03 UTC (Tue) by mebrown (subscriber, #7960) [Link] (5 responses)
They have a patent on hardware. Even if all this code is published, they still have that hardware patent and can prevent anybody else from producing such hardware. Acting this way to prevent a real driver from being developed is incredibly short sighted of them as it does nothing to affect the actual underlying hardware.
As somebody who holds over 50 patents myself and sits on my company patent committee, this is a total face-palm for me. Just misunderstanding and stupidity all around.
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 10, 2026 20:30 UTC (Tue) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (4 responses)
I don't really see where you are coming from. The patent gives knowledge but restricts the use of that knowledge in various ways. This is the general premise of patents that you seem to be calling it ludicrous, and I don't follow.
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:21 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (2 responses)
By open sourcing our DisplayLink technology for whatever personal reasons you may have as a "hobbyist," you will be single-handedly eviscerating DisplayLink's competitive advantage in this crowded market by educating our competitors and other third parties as to how we implement our proprietary technology, which we have gone to great lengths and great expense to prevent.
This sentence seems to be claiming that "DisplayLink's competitive advantage" is a trade secret. Patents don't protect trade secrets; in fact it's the opposite --- a patent is supposed to reveal your methods while giving you a monopoly over implementations of them.
You could claim that some parts of your technology are patented and others are trade secrets, but you'd have to carefully lay out which parts are which, and the lawyer didn't do that here.
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:46 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:59 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
synaptics doesnt understand what patents are
Posted Nov 12, 2026 3:04 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I despise intellectual property for other reasons, but I once worked up an alternate patent system which seemed fairer and might actually encourage its alleged justifications. From memory ...
A patent includes: 1. The recipe to reproduce the object. 2. The royalty schedule. 3. A time limit.
This can end in two ways: If no one reproduces the object within the time limit, the patent fails. If someone reproduces the object, the interval from patent to reproduction establishes the patent length.
The incentives work out correctly: Inventors want as long a time limit as possible to get a longer patent. Inventors want as complex a patent as possible to prevent copycats. But if it's too complex and no one reproduces it, they have no patent. Copycats want to reproduce as soon as possible to get a shorter patent. Copycats may decide to reproduce it internally but not sell it, thus being ready to start selling the instant the time limit expires.
There has to be some maximum time limit; otherwise inventors would choose 100 years.
The multiplier from copycat time to patent length can be by legislative policy or vary per patent.
(This is from memory. I may have forgotten some subtle aspects.)
Crap on every platform
Posted Nov 10, 2026 18:17 UTC (Tue) by jbills (subscriber, #161176) [Link] (1 responses)
If these are the same docks I use at work, then they really aren't much better on Windows. I have constant issues with them, including
- Low power delivery
- Long time from connection to display activation
- Displays sometimes fail to activate on the lock screen
- Pass through of keyboard and mouse sometimes fails
- The computer sometimes slows down dramatically until a reboot when connecting to these docks.
- Previously, I have had issues where the screens would randomly fail to activate at all, requiring disconnecting and reconnecting 3-8 times before activating
If somebody wants to come around and knock these guys out of the market with a better product and open source software, that would be amazing and very welcome.
Crap on every platform
Posted Nov 11, 2026 19:54 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (subscriber, #34940) [Link]
So basically instead of protecting their “competitive advantage”, they are protecting their “competitive disadvantage”, and blocking an attempt to give them an actual “competitive advantage” for free?
Kick Synaptics out of OIN
Posted Nov 10, 2026 18:59 UTC (Tue) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (4 responses)
This is a ridiculous conclusion? The entire point of OIN was deterrence via mutually assured destruction. Why would it matter if the specific aspect is covered or not? A member of OIN is threatened with patent litigation for open source work on Linux, the appropriate response is to kick Synaptic out of OIN, and aim the patent-cannon at them for everything they have.
Kick Synaptics out of OIN
Posted Nov 10, 2026 19:54 UTC (Tue) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link]
Kick Synaptics out of OIN
Posted Nov 10, 2026 20:15 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)
In theory, yes. In practice, afaik OIN has never ever done this. So I suspect this was done to reduce the pressure to get rid of software patents and has no other real world impact.
Kick Synaptics out of OIN
Posted Nov 10, 2026 20:30 UTC (Tue) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (1 responses)
Kick Synaptics out of OIN
Posted Nov 10, 2026 21:59 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
I also don't think this is the first time one of these 'wait OIN doesn't protect us???' events has occurred but getting patent clarifications take so long that we forget.
Really Sad
Posted Nov 11, 2026 6:57 UTC (Wed) by stephanlachnit (subscriber, #151361) [Link]
I read through the email conversion and genuially the emails from Synaptic shock me. I have the feeling the person on the other end has no clue whatsoever is going on. if anything, Synaptic would actually gain a comptetitive advantage by making the docks more attractive on Linux without investing the work themselves. It's free labor for them.
And is pretty rude on top I find those emails pretty rude. Instead of trying to work out what is and isn't problematic by actually talking to Mike they just say "no shut up or we sue you". I will deinifintely avoid buying from companies that employ such - for sorry the language - dickheads.
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 7:54 UTC (Wed) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link] (9 responses)
However, we already do have a free standard and implementation for Linux. See the GUD project. [1] It implements a USB display adapter on RasPi hardware. The GUD project is up for grabs, if anyone wants to maintain it.
[1] https://github.com/notro/gud/wiki
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 8:03 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 8:54 UTC (Wed) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link] (1 responses)
DisplayLink itself is a proprietary product, and most of its USB messages transfer pixel data anyway. From what I've seen, the biggest bottleneck for performance is contention on the USB.
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 9:30 UTC (Wed) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 9:31 UTC (Wed) by shalem (subscriber, #4062) [Link] (1 responses)
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 9:40 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 14:50 UTC (Wed) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028) [Link] (3 responses)
It is displayport. From VESA. The standards group that appears to do all of the work for displays. I seem to recall apple being an early adopter of display port over USB-C.
HDMI seems to be the only real competition to display port and even HDMI displays appear to use display port over PCB's internally.
This display link thing is a huge confusion for me. Like they have deliberately choosen a similar sounding name for a non-standard display solution.
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 16:02 UTC (Wed) by knewt (subscriber, #32124) [Link] (1 responses)
So as I understand it, the point behind this displaylink tech, and the reason it's not using displayport, is that it allows you to connect more monitors than the graphics hardware in the computer actually supports. There is a piece of software that runs on the host computer, and acts as a virtual graphics card. The software then sends the display output (compressed in some way) over a regular usb data transport to the dock, which then converts that back into a regular display signal to be sent out over either an hdmi or displayport connector.
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 21:10 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]
My impression is this is mostly about the "compressed in some way" and "regular USB" parts. Regular USB, even the common variants of USB3, really isn't fast enough for high resolution uncompressed video, so they have to compress it. That's what their "virtual graphics card" does; it's just a video stream compressor. The signal goes over USB to the dock, where it's decompressed and sent to the monitor(s) over DP or HDMI. There might very well be legal problems producing a compatible FOSS implementation if their system uses patent-encumbered compression. It's clearly a second best solution compared to something like Thunderbolt that can handle the uncompressed video stream, but it's better than being restricted to the resolution of video that can be sent over USB uncompressed.
Free standard for USB displays is needed
Posted Nov 11, 2026 18:54 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
The only "value add" HDMI brings to the party (and that for the Copyright Cartel only) is probably the requirement for encryption-in-transit. So why shouldn't it use displayport for everything else :-(
Finally
Posted Nov 11, 2026 14:01 UTC (Wed) by fratti (subscriber, #105722) [Link]
Patented or secret?
Posted Nov 11, 2026 17:36 UTC (Wed) by davidstrauss (subscriber, #85867) [Link] (1 responses)
Whatever the patents cover was published as the price of exclusivity (and the two listed ones, filed in 2010, don’t have long left). Whatever they don’t cover is at best a trade secret, and reverse engineering a product you bought is generally a lawful way to learn one. Coke isn't suing the guy on YouTube who fastidiously reverse-engineered Coke. Either way, “showing people how it works” isn’t a harm patent law recognizes. It's a trade-secret grievance smuggled into a patent claim.
Patented or secret?
Posted Nov 11, 2026 19:13 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
In an ideal world it would be immediate invalidation of the patent, because the whole point of patent is precisely to disclose such information — and if they fear that someone may disclose that valuable information then it means patent itself was bogus.
In our world… no one cares. Even if it's supposed to invalidate the patent according to law, but in practice you need court decision for that and no one with deep enough pockets is interested in suing Synaptics.
onsemi
Posted Nov 11, 2026 20:21 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (subscriber, #34940) [Link]
Apparently onsemi now owns Synaptics (or at least announced they plan to own it, the process might not be over yet). Are they any better at open source?
Wouldn't Be Infringement in USA
Posted Nov 11, 2026 21:52 UTC (Wed) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (1 responses)
In the USA, patent infringement is covered under USC 271. There are several ways to infringe. Writing open source software isn't one of them:
271(a), direct infringement: Doesn't apply because you're not "making" or "selling" the entire invention. Are you "using" the invention? Well, I don't know: did you just write the code, or did you also run it in an infringing manner? And, if you did just write the code, if you're purely a hobbyist, the "experimental use" defense should cover you.
If you do somehow lose on the experimental use exception, and they can prove it's willful, then oh God no! Treble damages! But you know how much treble damages would be for a single unit of a shit product like DisplayLink? Something like $0.60. So you'd probably be able to get the lawsuit thrown out of court based on the de minimis doctrine before it even got to trial.
271(b), inducement: Lots of ways this fails for the plaintiff. One way is that you have to actually talk to the person you're inducing to infringe. So, throw the code over the wall, talk only to other developers and not users, and you're good.
271(c), contributory: You have to sell or offer to sell it. You're not selling anything: you're giving your code away for free. Case closed.
2771(f), extraterritorial: There's a very nice case, Microsoft v. AT&T, where the facts were that Microsoft mailed a copy of Windows to a customer, on a CD or DVD or something like that, and AT&T said, "waaaah, Windoze is a component that infringes our patuntz, so you owe us under 271(f)!" and Microsoft said, "LOL GTFO luzer! Software's intangible and can't be a component of a patented invention!" The Supreme Court agreed with Microsoft.
So, yeah, someone in the US should be good to pick up the torch here.
Wouldn't Be Infringement in USA
Posted Nov 12, 2026 1:25 UTC (Thu) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]