"Doug Mentohl" <doug_ment...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:gpj4s7$sc...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on
the server. All MS has to do is point it out. As such and in a court of
law, it is up to the plaintiff to prove the case not the other way
round.
Yes. I said "if Tom-Tom were found to be infringing...". Could they
avoid paying by getting all their customers to download new,
non-infringing firmware? NO is the answer.
No one can be sued for distributing 'non-infringing firmware', your
statement is legalistic nonsense ..
--
I think you have the bull by the wrong horn here. The issue is not whether
the suit would continue if the software were noninfringing, but rather that
it is not reasonably possible to create the non-infringing firmware. The
patent is on what the firmware does, not on how it is written. And there is
the ancillary issue of how TomTom could ensure that all their customers had
done so.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
