On 12/03/15 22:49, Ben Tilly wrote:
I think I can unconfuse you. :-)
You wrote a good synopsis.
The developer knows of an applicable patent,
More than one. Far more than one. :(
therefore suggest that the developer should discuss the situation with
a neutral lawyer, and follow that
On 12/03/15 23:59, ChanMaxthon wrote:
since decades if not centuries ago a prior art already stood there, why would
the patent still be relevant in the first place?
Three magic phrases:
* With a computer;
* Over a Network;
* Using the Internet;
or just shoot their patents down completely.
Friends,
I presented a few months ago at Santa Clara University about Open Source and
Open Standards http://htlj.org/symposium/speakers/lawrence-rosen/ . If you
get a free hour sometime, play that presentation. Follow that link and enjoy
a legal/software topic. I'm the short chubby guy in
Developer needs to pay a lawyer, I'm thinking...
On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:52 PM, jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
All:
Need some help.
Software was privately created.
Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0.
If you want to change the license, for your comments, do so.
Jonathon Blake scripsit:
Question:
Should developer make any notation about possible patents that the
software _might_ infringe upon?
When it comes to patents, ignorance is bliss, because of the treble
damages for willful violations. All programmers should be on notice
by now that anything
All:
Need some help.
Software was privately created.
Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0.
If you want to change the license, for your comments, do so.
Issue:
Developer is using systems, methods, and techniques that were described
in the literature more than three decades ago (in
Sometimes licenses conflict, producing a non-distributable mess of licenses for
a piece of code. Using my such code internally is not that much of a problem
but what if I used such piece of code in a web application?
My project involves transcoding video files on the cloud, hard dubbing the
I think I can unconfuse you. :-)
The developer knows of an applicable patent, but believes the
following set of statements to be true.
1. The new software does not infringe.
2. The patent holder might believe otherwise.
3. Said patent may have been granted on the basis of work the
developer
Just wondering, since decades if not centuries ago a prior art already stood
there, why would the patent still be relevant in the first place? If the
hostile IP cockroach is biting you can show the court those prior art, either
proving that their patents have nothing to do with your code, or
If the facts are what I guessed, then the Alice v. CLS Bank decision
last year would make that point. But the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has a history of creatively
interpreting Supreme Court decisions to expand what is patentable. So
it is not certain that the
On Thursday 12. March 2015 02.12, Pamela Chestek wrote:
But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of
being printed.
I remember in Norway where I live, it was common in the 1990s to have wrapped
software CDs with a seal that said something to the effect of «by
11 matches
Mail list logo
