Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=xvtGuRz6RAI3zDXY3+WUHe+/9aj8FrCWWl8AbPWlkTGkonZzugVdQEirr9c7+Darv5Vcb0fuiqHbvunlTj36yvZQhii/zdGi/7IcP9AhaNyOT8B2XEzBKPerG1s1W7FXVRo8ypATQRaBPGzDGslRmR8KvkB2PBN3Mx+wS4Nddvs=;
Message-ID: <417441.54326.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:06:13 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimCBZ8tWghF_VevJiWLOVHYG6JJVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=
.=0A=0A=0ABack to the topic:=0A=0AThere are a few patent search sites on th=
e web. I guess the most prominent one is:=0A=0Ahttp://patft.uspto.gov/=0A=
=0A=0AThe following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_ suggestion (Larry a=
nd others, please comment): =0AIf you have a Patent Number and the source c=
ode in question, then we at least know how to _not_ do it if you would like=
 to re-implement this feature. =0A=0AThere are also chances that anyone kno=
ws a similar way how to solve the source goals in a way which is known to b=
e prior art (a solution which was already used way before the patent was fi=
led) and thus the patent does not bite us.=0A=0AWorking around patent issue=
s 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 soluti=
on to explicitly avoid it.=0A=0AI fear that discussing your patent problem =
in a 'general' manner would lead to a fat book full of 'if-then-else' answe=
rs. As for every correct answer, there is recursively always at least one e=
xceptional case too...=0A=0ALieGrue,=0Astrub=0A=0A=0A--- On Tue, 5/31/11, B=
enson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:=0A=0A> From: Benson Margulie=
s <bimargulies@gmail.com>=0A> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into =
a bar ...=0A> To: legal-discuss@apache.org=0A> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011,=
 1:41 PM=0A> If you actually studied law, you know=0A> more than I do. That=
's what I=0A> needed to know :-)=0A> =0A> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM, =
Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>=0A> wrote:=0A> > Benson, I'm sorry if my =
wording was too strong. What I=0A> meant is that patent law questions are a=
lways very difficult=0A> to handle. And IF the opponent party likes to go t=
o court it=0A> might be very expensive. And even if the facts seem 100%=0A>=
 clear to us, the outcome is still absolutely open. But this=0A> is actuall=
y true for every case which goes to court. There=0A> is a saying: to be jus=
tified and to get justice are two=0A> completely different things.=0A> >=0A=
> > And yes, I've studied iura at the Juridicum in=0A> =A0Vienna but I'm no=
t actively working in this area. Also my=0A> knowledge is mostly limited to=
 European law and the basics=0A> of international law. So I'd consider myse=
lf as well=0A> educated amateur in this area.=0A> >=0A> > LieGrue,=0A> > st=
rub=0A> >=0A> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.co=
m>=0A> wrote:=0A> >=0A> >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>=
=0A> >> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar=0A> ...=0A> >> T=
o: legal-discuss@apache.org=0A> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM=0A=
> >> Mark,=0A> >>=0A> >> I have learned that almost any question posted=0A>=
 here will=0A> >> elicit a=0A> >> strongly-worded response from you. With a=
ll due=0A> respect,=0A> >> what I wish I=0A> >> knew is whether you know an=
y more than I do about=0A> the=0A> >> subject. Have=0A> >> you IP legal tra=
ining, or are you a fellow=0A> enthusiastic=0A> >> amateur?=0A> >>=0A> >> -=
-benson=0A> >>=0A> >>=0A> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg=
=0A> <struberg@yahoo.de>=0A> >> wrote:=0A> >> > Of what kind is the patent?=
=0A> >> > Do you have the patent number where it is=0A> filed=0A> >> under?=
=0A> >> > And the source code? Does it really infringe=0A> the=0A> >> paten=
t, or is it just an empty claim?=0A> >> > Is the patent a trivial patent wh=
ich should=0A> get=0A> >> revoked anyway?=0A> >> >=0A> >> > software patent=
s suck :( ...=0A> >> >=0A> >> > LieGrue,=0A> >> > strub=0A> >> >=0A> >> > -=
-- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>=0A> >> wrote:=
=0A> >> >=0A> >> >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>=0A> >> >=
> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into=0A> a bar=0A> >> ...=0A> >> >> T=
o: legal-discuss@apache.org=0A> >> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM=
=0A> >> >> So, respecting the icla, someone=0A> >> >> submits a patch to a =
project and=0A> >> >> notifies that some university claims a=0A> patent on=
=0A> >> the=0A> >> >> algorithm=0A> >> >> therein. The code is the 'origina=
l work'=0A> of the=0A> >> submitter.=0A> >> >> As a PMC=0A> >> >> member, w=
hat do I do?=0A> >> >

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