James LewisMoss writes: > Say I write a program Y that does process X and release it GPL. I find > later (after many people download Y that X is patented by company Z. > Despite Y being GPLed all those people have to stop using it or pay > company Z some money. The license doesn't mean didly when there are IP > claims.
Then Z gets a court to order everybody to stop distributing and using Y. You have no say in the matter. To Z and the court you are just one of many infringers. However, as long as Z merely claims that their patent on X is being infringed but does not actually go to court nobody is obligated to do anything. You may chose to stop using and distributing Y in order to placate Z while I make a different decision. I might, for example, choose to call Z's bluff and keep on using Y. And they might back down, having known all along that they didn't really have a case. > The clause is even nicer than that. It says that IBM will try before > telling you sto stop using is to rectify the situation in some other way. No. It says that if Z sends IBM a letter claiming that the Software infringes one of Z's patents IBM can decide that there is no point in spending money defending a piece of non-revenue-generating software and placate Z by ordering all the users of the Software to destroy it. Not only does Z then not have to prove that IBM is infringing, but all the users are denied the opportunity to force Z to do so. I would be forced to destroy my copies of the software, even though my lawyer and I might be quite certain that Z's claim is groundless. > So, in my mind all IBM has done is state explicitly what all other > licenses basically include implicitly. All other licenses do not grant the author the right to order all copies destroyed because he thinks he might be about to be sued. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
