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
On 12/03/15 22:49, Ben Tilly wrote:
I think I can unconfuse you. :-)
You wrote a good synopsis.
The developer knows of an applicable patent,
More than one. Far more than one. :(
therefore suggest that the developer should discuss the situation with
a neutral lawyer, and follow that
On 12/03/15 23:59, ChanMaxthon wrote:
since decades if not centuries ago a prior art already stood there, why would
the patent still be relevant in the first place?
Three magic phrases:
* With a computer;
* Over a Network;
* Using the Internet;
or just shoot their patents down completely.
Developer needs to pay a lawyer, I'm thinking...
On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:52 PM, jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Jonathon Blake scripsit:
Question:
Should developer make any notation about possible patents that the
software _might_ infringe upon?
When it comes to patents, ignorance is bliss, because of the treble
damages for willful violations. All programmers should be on notice
by now that anything
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
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
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
8 matches
Mail list logo
