www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Date Tue, 31 May 2011 14:06:13 GMT
Again sorry for the wording, I really forgot that all people subscribed to legal-discuss are
well aware that patent questions are almost never trivial.


Back to the topic:

There are a few patent search sites on the web. I guess the most prominent one is:

http://patft.uspto.gov/


The following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_ suggestion (Larry and others, please comment):

If you have a Patent Number and the source code in question, then we at least know how to
_not_ do it if you would like to re-implement this feature. 

There are also chances that anyone knows a similar way how to solve the source goals in a
way which is known to be prior art (a solution which was already used way before the patent
was filed) and thus the patent does not bite us.

Working around patent issues is to some degree the exact opposite to working around IP issues:
Instead of _not_ looking at the prior code, you _must_ look at the patented solution to explicitly
avoid it.

I fear that discussing your patent problem in a 'general' manner would lead to a fat book
full of 'if-then-else' answers. As for every correct answer, there is recursively always at
least one exceptional case too...

LieGrue,
strub


--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 1:41 PM
> If you actually studied law, you know
> more than I do. That's what I
> needed to know :-)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Benson, I'm sorry if my wording was too strong. What I
> meant is that patent law questions are always very difficult
> to handle. And IF the opponent party likes to go to court it
> might be very expensive. And even if the facts seem 100%
> clear to us, the outcome is still absolutely open. But this
> is actually true for every case which goes to court. There
> is a saying: to be justified and to get justice are two
> completely different things.
> >
> > And yes, I've studied iura at the Juridicum in
>  Vienna but I'm not actively working in this area. Also my
> knowledge is mostly limited to European law and the basics
> of international law. So I'd consider myself as well
> educated amateur in this area.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar
> ...
> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> I have learned that almost any question posted
> here will
> >> elicit a
> >> strongly-worded response from you. With all due
> respect,
> >> what I wish I
> >> knew is whether you know any more than I do about
> the
> >> subject. Have
> >> you IP legal training, or are you a fellow
> enthusiastic
> >> amateur?
> >>
> >> --benson
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg
> <struberg@yahoo.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Of what kind is the patent?
> >> > Do you have the patent number where it is
> filed
> >> under?
> >> > And the source code? Does it really infringe
> the
> >> patent, or is it just an empty claim?
> >> > Is the patent a trivial patent which should
> get
> >> revoked anyway?
> >> >
> >> > software patents suck :( ...
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> >> >> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into
> a bar
> >> ...
> >> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
> >> >> So, respecting the icla, someone
> >> >> submits a patch to a project and
> >> >> notifies that some university claims a
> patent on
> >> the
> >> >> algorithm
> >> >> therein. The code is the 'original work'
> of the
> >> submitter.
> >> >> As a PMC
> >> >> member, what do I do?
> >> >

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


Mime
View raw message