www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com>
Subject Re: Adoption of new Software and Document License
Date Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:28:50 GMT
It is utterly beyond me why we continue to have this identical conversation
again and again.

Larry, if you want to document, for each of our projects, what standards
and patents they implement, just friken do it. We are a do-ocracy. Submit a
patch. Quit asserting that *someone* should do it. That is not how things
get done here.

You have made it abundantly clear what you think should happen. Many people
have made it clear what they think of your ideas. But if you want anything
to happen, you have to submit a patch. You're not new here. You know how
this works.
On Jun 6, 2015 4:29 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> [Someone asked me a good off-list question about the new W3C Software and
> Document License. Here is my on-list response, which is offered with no
> warranty nor as attorney-client advice. Ask your own attorney!]
>
>
>
> If Apache members or customers are much worried about liability for
> contributory patent infringement merely by redistributing some Apache
> software, read the below quotation from the 2014 Jury Instructions of the
> Federal Circuit Bar Association (and the cases listed there).
>
>
>
> It seems that the distributor of an ASF software product that implements a
> widely-used, patent and copyright royalty-free W3C standard is *not*
> likely to be held liable as a contributory infringer for other
> miscellaneous patents that we later discover happen to read on that
> software.
>
>
>
> That's usually good for ASF and distributors!
>
>
>
> And it is another good reason to "advertise" *in our NOTICE file* that
> our software implements specific FOSS-compatible W3C standards capable of
> substantial non-infringing uses, in compliance with the new W3C license.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> From http://www.modeljuryinstructions.com/tag/contributory-infringement/:
>
>
>
> *B.3.3. INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT—CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT*
>
> [Patent holder] argues that [alleged infringer] is liable for contributory
> infringement by contributing to the direct infringement of the [ ] patent
> by [insert name or other description of direct infringer]. As with direct
> infringement, you must determine contributory infringement on a
> claim-by-claim basis.
>
> [Alleged infringer] is liable for contributory infringement of a claim if
> [patent holder] proves by a preponderance of the evidence:
>
> (1)               [alleged infringer] sells, offers to sell, or imports
> within the United States a component of a product, or apparatus for use in
> a process, during the time the [ ] patent is in force;
>
> (2)               the component or apparatus has no substantial,
> noninfringing use;
>
> (3)               the component or apparatus constitutes a material part
> of the invention;
>
> (4)               [alleged infringer] is aware of the [ ] patent and knows
> that the [products or processes] for which the [component or apparatus] has
> no other substantial use may be covered by a claim of  the [ ] patent or
> may satisfy a claim of the [ ] patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and
>
> (5)               that use directly infringes the claim.
>
> In order to prove contributory infringement, [patent holder] must prove
> that each of the above requirements is met. This proof of each
> requirement must be by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., that it is
> more likely than not that each of the above requirements is met.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message