> At some companies, the lawyers specifically request that employees do > NOT check for violation of patents or research any patents before > writing code, as this process actually increases liability. It's similar > to the "clean room implementation" model. If I look, then my ability to > say "I wrote this myself without any input" is tainted. If I just write > it myself without researching what others have done, then I can at least > claim I never copied any ideas, and although I might still be found in > violation of a patent, this can be addressed if and when it is found > (either pay license/royalty fees or re-write the code to NOT use the > now-known-to-be-patented ideas).
Indeed this difference between patents and copyrights is worth repeating since it's critical and non-intuitive. If you and I both write an identical piece of music, neither of us can succeed in a copyright infringement case against the other if we can prove we never SAW the work of the other: in order to infringe on a copyright, you actually have to COPY the work. That's NOT true for patents. Even if I independently "invent" the same thing you do, I owe you royalties if you patented it and I didn't. This is why patents are a very serious threat to free software.
