On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Curt Hagenlocher wrote: [...] > The originally-expressed concern was that looking at the IronPython source > code might "contaminate" a developer such that, if the same developer later > worked on a different project with similar architecture, it might open that > project up to claims of violating a Microsoft patent. > > I am not a lawyer, but this seems highly unlikely. "Independent > rediscovery" does not protect you from claims of patent infringement, only > from copyright infringement. [...]
Right. However, I hear that intentional patent infringement is considered more serious than inadvertent patent infringement, and that Microsoft employees have interpreted the large number of alleged patent infringements in free and open source software as evidence of at least some of them being intentional: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm > "This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," > Gutierrez asserts. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being > infringed." I'm unsure whether having deliberately avoided source code that you believe to contain patented methods might be interpreted as evidence of deliberate infringement or as evidence of the lack of it. But it would seem plausible that one's actions and statements about reading source code *can* have some effect on the seriousness of patent infringements, even if they never make the difference between an infringement having occurred or not. John _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com