I have to use this argument in traffic court so now and then :-) "Sorry officer. I thought that the speed limit is just a suggestion. I didn't know it was a law that you shouldn't break. Can i have a lower fine, now?"
:-) (scratching my head). Isn't it in favor for a company to have their employees know about patents so that they can avoid expensive law-suits? Trying to deliberately avoid any inquiry to whether a patent is already granted to others or not seems to be counterproductive and border-line 'illegal'. But then again, i'm not a lawyer either and I don't play one on TV, YouTube or Hulu. On Jul 14, 3:48 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> wrote: > As I understand, in the US, if a court finds you in violation of a > patent, damages can be much higher if you actually knew about the > patent. Once again I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. > > JBQ > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Incognito<[email protected]> wrote: > > > So why is it not wise to talk about patents? What is the exact law > > prohibiting this? Trying to make sense of this? > > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Al Sutton wrote: > > They alternative is what HTC, Nokia, etc. do, which is to base yourself > > outside the US so you can sell fully functional units to anyone not in > > the US and take part in discussions about any software/hardware concept > > you want. > > > Agreed. While unfortunate, Google's policy is standard fare for many > > US-based tech firms, particularly larger ones (e.g., ones with in-house > > legal counsel). I've heard the same policy stated at a wide range of > > firms, mostly "name brands". > > > this is hardly the position a company that claims to be open should take. > > > Open versus closed has little to do with it. Being a large target and a > > magnet for patent suits does. > > > Of course, it would be lovely if a Google-sized enterprise would take a > > shot at getting some of these things declared unconstitutional through > > the courts, but we can't exactly blame them if they elect to eschew such > > a strategy. > > > it doesn't strike me as logical that a google android engineer is given an > > incentive not to participate in discussions on a google android forum. > > > You are welcome to petition your Congressperson, if applicable, to have > > the laws amended. Or, donate to a cause that tries to minimize the > > impact of software patents (e.g., EFF). > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) > >http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > > Android App Developer Books:http://commonsware.com/books.html > > -- > Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > Android Engineer, Google. > > Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private > will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further > warning.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
