Re: patents list is a bad idea (Was: patents)

["Curtis C. Hovey" <sinzui cox net>]

On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:36, Dave Camp wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 19:56, Curtis C. Hovey wrote:
> > The ignorance defense does what?  Lets GNOME use the patent anyway?
> 
> Knowledge of a patent triples the damages - please don't post these
> lists anywhere where I can see them.

Ok.  I'll end with the patent argument.  For the sake clarity so I
understand the full issue.

1. We know that GNOME probably contains code that is patented.
2. What code, we cannot be sure because we will not research 
   patents, nor be sure which nations these patent are recognized.
3. If the owner of a patent raise the issue, the author of the code
   may be liable, but may plead ignorance.
4. Distributors and users of the questionable code are immune to legal
   action because they took the code in good faith.
5. The owner of the patent may accept the developers argument in good
   faith, may waive damages, and the offending code will be removed.
6. If there is evidence that the author was aware of the patent, 
   damages will will be tripled.
7. Code that is known be patented will not be included because no   
   developer can risk the damage.
8. Commonly known patents, like MPEG will be avoided because developers
   and distributors would be liable--there is no defense.
9. Anonymously authored code and code stored offshore cannot be 
   distributed because no organization can plead good faith.


-- 
__C U R T I S  C.  H O V E Y____________________
sinzui cox net
Guilty of stealing everything I am.