Please stop sending e mail to this address, Daunevin is no longer
with us. Thank you.
On 12-Mar-15, at 7:11 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
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 pendulum will not swing back before anyone
tests this particular patent.
Furthermore we don't have all of the facts. It may be that the patent
describes a creative way to apply known mathematical techniques in a
clever way to a problem that had long been poorly solved in a very
different way. In that case, a court could decide that the fact that
the mathematical techniques happened to have been known by people in
another field is not a bar to patentability in this one. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-
obviousness#Graham_factors
for the relevant test.)
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:59 PM, ChanMaxthon <[email protected]> wrote:
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 just shoot their patents down
completely.
No lawyer, just trying to give my two cents.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2015, at 06:49, Ben Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:
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 did many years ago.
4. The algorithms used have at least 3 decades of prior art behind
them. Just not decades of prior art in software.
My further impression is that there is considerable history between
the developer and the patent holder. Likely there is some bad
blood.
The developer is unhappy that the patent exists, and thinks it
shouldn't.
If my impression is correct, the developer is an interested party in
an ongoing conflict. Therefore the developer's opinion on
infringement is biased and is therefore not to be trusted. I
therefore suggest that the developer should discuss the situation
with
a neutral lawyer, and follow that lawyer's advice.
(None of us like being accused of incorrectly evaluating the
situation. But having recently been through a divorce, I'm
painfully
aware of how my judgement of certain situations was different during
the conflict than it is now...)
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jonathon,
This double-negative in your email leaves me confused: "This
isn't a case of where the developer is unaware of possible
patents."
In many situations, such as in Apache and W3C, a contributor has
an obligation to the community to disclose what he or she knows.
Secrets serve nobody. Disclose what you know. No negatives.
AS-IS and NO WARRANTY with respect to patents would then be
appropriate.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: jonathon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents
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 some
instances 400 years ago), except instead of using pen and paper,
they are using software.
As best as can be determined, there are no patent issues with
any libraries that are used.
As best as can be determined, there are no copyright/license
issues with any of the libraries that are used.
Developer is not going to be responsible for claims of patent
infringement by users.
Developer is not going to cover any court costs incurred by
users, because of patent related litigation, or threats of such
litigation.
Developer is emphatically not going to pay for the right to
utilize any patents within the software.
Content created by the developer years before the patents were
applied for, might have been the source of any patents that were
granted.
Question:
Should developer make any notation about possible patents that
the software _might_ infringe upon?
This isn't a case of where the developer is unaware of possible
patents.
Nor is it a case of where the developer holds any patents.
jonathon
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
