www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects
Date Sun, 31 May 2015 21:41:49 GMT
On May 31, 2015 4:22 PM, "Rich Bowen" <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 31, 2015 4:54 PM, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This means that an opinion that a patent is "just plain BS, IMHO," is
not a relevant opinion at this stage of determining infringement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As for patent validity, there is nobody at Apache who is qualified to
analyze that for others. The most ASF can do is to disclose what we are
aware of in a NOTICE file and let our customers do their own analysis if
they want to.
> >
> >
> > Aren't we similarly unqualified to determine whether we infringe? I
would say "yes", and I'm sure you would agree.
> >
> > Thus, to water out random claims of infringement from random
developers, we must wait until the patent holder *informs* us that we
(likely) infringe. Until the patent holder wants to assert that, then I
don't think we're qualified to make *any* judgement, including whether it
is important/relevant to provide notice.
> >
> >
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but, surely, if we are aware that we infringe,
wouldn't we be compelled to rectify that situation before making another
release?

Just because a patent holder asserts we infringe, doesn't make it True.
(and I believe even less true, if a third party makes the assertion; thus
my position we only worry when the holder itself makes the assertion)

We could decide to fight. We could maybe get a blanket license. We could
change the code. We could ask them to donate the patent to us, or to a
non-assert entity. There are likely more options.

(of course, in the basic case of the holder not caring that we infringe,
then they wouldn't even reach out to us to assert their rights)

>
> This whole conversation seems to assume that we would, at any point, make
a release while being aware of an infringement, which should never happen.

Yeah... We'd have to stop releases until we reach a decision with the
holder. Further releases could/would be dangerous.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message