On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:15 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2008-10-03, greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven D'Aprano > >> wrote: > >> > >> > (2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap to > >> > read it with respect to patents and copyright. > >> > >> That's not how patents work. > > > > I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as > > I know, whether something is deemed a derivative work is > > judged on the basis of how similar it is to another work, > > not whether its author had knowledge of the other work. > > As long as you express an idea in an original way, it > > shouldn't matter where you got the idea from. > > IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing > punative damages. If you knowingly and intentionally infringe > a patent, I think you're libel for more damages than if you > accidentally re-invent something. At least that's what I was > told... >
s/libel/liable/ When talking about legal matters, it's kind of an important distinction. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
