www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Carrot2 License
Date Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:03:23 GMT
Hash: SHA512

Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 11:31 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ralph Goers
>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> My understanding of their intent is they are trying to make sure is
>>>>> that
>>>>> no
>>>>> one tries to patent something that C2 has created.  By their own
>>>>> admission,
>>>>> the current wording comes down to English being a second language for
>>>>> them.
>>>> Well, that will legally be close to impossible to enforce. If A
>>>> downloads and analyses Carrot2 and then explain it all to B, then B
>>>> has no relationship with Carrot2 and could go ahead with patent
>>>> registration.
>>> You are confusing patents with copyrights. A clean room
>>> implementation does
>>> not protect you from a patent lawsuit.
>> Not sure why you say that. I just point out that you don't need an
>> implementation to proceed with patent registrations, and that even
>> though A has "promised" not to file for patents, A has not promised to
>> keep his mouth shut.
> "A downloads and analyses Carrot2 and then explain it all to B, then B
> has no relationship with Carrot2 and could go ahead with patent
> registration".
> This is false. As I understand patents in the U.S. (which may be
> faulty), B has no right to a patent since the algorithm was invented by
> A. All anyone has to do is show that A was prior art to invalidate the
> patent.
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent.

most european countries use first-to-file (and a valid european patent
may well be enforceable against US corporations)

IIRC there's talk in europe that publication on the internet should not
be considered strong enough to prevent the filing of patents. then
again, european software patents are not yet legal. if these reforms
were both passed then this would lead to a gold rush, with patent trolls
harvesting algorithms published only on the internet, patenting them
then suing their original authors. the european parliament has already
rejected software patents a few times. it's very likely that they'd ever
pass anything so damaging as the above scenario.

in summary: IMHO it's not something that's worth worrying about

- - robert
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message