In a message dated: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:28:24 GMT
Jon Hall said:
>The fact that there is prior art does not prevent a patent from being issued,
>(as long as the patent clerk is unaware of the prior art), nor does it prevent
>someone using a bad patent from scaring an "infringer" into paying some
>"nominal royalty", just to avoid any type of legal action.
>
>Only one of the reasons why software patents are bad.
But can't prior art be used to prove that the so-called infringer is
not, in fact infringing? OR, do they need to contest the patent's
existence in court, proving that it should never have been issued in
the first place?
If that's the case, then it's probably cheaper to live with it and
license the technology covered by the bad patent for many small
sites. Which seem to be the preferred target for these jokers.
What we need, is some large corporate which is technically in violation
of this patent to be willing to spend a little court time and money
on behalf of the rest of us :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
