|
Read the first sentence again - '... I
stole from someone else ...' Your at fault - gone - history - plead guilty. BUT, if you deny you stole it then when you go to court they will first (A) need to prove they own it and then (B) need to prove that there was a reasonable expectation that you knew they owned it. You of course will also need to prove that you own it and didn't know they claimed that they owned it because if you didn't challenge their claim that they own it when you first became aware of their claim, then your first argument will fail because you didn't assert ownership when you knew someone else was 'pretending' to claim ownership. (A) can be quickly assisted by seeking patents or registration in some recognised legal jurisdiction although there are other ways that a judge may be swayed. You should also understand that filling in a form and submitting it for a patent etc is no guarantee that you were first with the idea/code. Patents etc can be overturned. Similarly (B) does not mean that they need prove that you (yes YOU) personally were aware that the code was already 'owned' by someone else. They will only need to prove that you are not stupid and in fact do have experience in the appropriate software development, so much so that it is reasonable for you to have an expectation that such-and-such code (or a pretty close proximity to it) is used by the aggrieved party. In short, we live in a legal system that is adversarial in nature. That means that the lawyers will all get rich because there is really no definitive answer to any legal question of this type. It is a case of who can convince the judge that they deserve the protection that the law can provide. Hopefully the court will get it right but the system is not perfect. More importantly it is not cheap. Like most coders, we all work in black and white. We use 'while ..' loops and 'if ... else' etc. The law is more like leaving all those statements open at the end. Like a 'perhaps when .. then try .. ' without having any default break statement. Given all those if statements, the judge must make a decision which in fact can have more than one answer and even then result in a less than satisfactory outcome to both or either party. On 23/06/2011 11:39 AM, mike smith wrote:
|
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (was BYO Computer @ ... Mark Hurd
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (was BYO Comput... mike smith
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (was BYO Comput... Stephen Price
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (was BYO Co... Scott Barnes
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (was BY... Glen Harvy
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership" (wa... David Connors
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership"... Scott Barnes
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership"... mike smith
- Re: [OT] Software "ownership&... Glen Harvy
- RE: [OT] Software "owners... Steve White
- RE: [OT] Software "owners... Ian Thomas
- Re: [OT] Software "owners... Scott Barnes
