www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects
Date Thu, 04 Jun 2015 01:05:01 GMT
Louis Suárez-Potts asked:

Perhaps I missed something. Has there been a case or similar occasion that
would cause us (ASF, that is) to assert more plainly than is now done patent
contributions?

 

Not an on-point case that I'm aware of other than the reasons I previously
cited here (copied below).

 

But the patent law in the US is evolving. Just within the past week on this
list I quoted two very recent cases, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and one
from the CAFC, that reflect a different law for inducing patent infringement
(what ASF does all the time, presumably under license!!!) than what was in
effect when ASF was a babe. That's what ASF and our direct downstream
distributors are now facing: A possibility of inducing infringement through
willful blindness merely by pretending that patents don't affect us.

 

Nor is ASF any longer a babe. When one of the primary ASF projects, AOO,
delivers software to over a hundred million users around the world, I assume
that a grown up like you is professional and diligent with respect to IP,
including patents.

 

But hey, ASF has no money to sue for and I'm not ASF's attorney. :-)  The
issue is primarily one for our downstream distributors to pay their own
lawyers to advise them. I assume they are doing that right now, which is why
they are reluctant to speak up here.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:luispo@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 4:27 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

 

 

> On 03 Jun 2015, at 15:21, Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 

> A great question has been asked:

> > Why should we need to enumerate patent contributions?

> 

> We own no patents and, as has repeatedly been pointed out, our ALv2
license itself already includes a grant for use and aggregation.

> 

> There are at least three other good reasons for us to enumerate patent
contributions to ASF:

> 

> 1. A patent owner can obtain infringement damages only from the date of
such a notice. 35 USC 287(a). The patent owner probably wants to have its
patents enumerated to protect its own financial interests in that patent.

> 

> 2. While certain patent claims have been licensed to ASF under a FOSS
license and then to the worldother claims in those patents or
(non-derivative) independent implementations that aren't FOSS-licensed. Take
notice.

> 

> 3. This notice is ASF's defense to willful blindness or willful
infringement in an inducing patent infringement case. It asserts that we
know of the patent and either (1) have a FOSS license to it, or (2) in our
early but serious view we don't believe we infringe.

> 

 

Larry,

Perhaps I missed something. Has there been a case or similar occasion that
would cause us (ASF, that is) to assert more plainly than is now done patent
contributions?

 

louis

 

 


Mime
View raw message