You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2011/05/31 14:37:45 UTC
A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
member, what do I do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
It seems to me that this should have come up before and be fodder for
a web page.
I'm suspecting that the answer is going to be something like: 'it
depends on the degree of certainty of the infringement of the code on
the patent.'
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> just a suggestion on the conservative side - I'd wait to hear from others, especially more knowledgeable people. :)
>
> geir
>
> On May 31, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Geir.
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> I'd think you'd want to reject if you know it's patent encumbered and the patent holder didn't submit the implementation (triggering the patent license part of the AL)
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
>>>> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
>>>> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
>>>> member, what do I do?
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
just a suggestion on the conservative side - I'd wait to hear from others, especially more knowledgeable people. :)
geir
On May 31, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Thanks, Geir.
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I'd think you'd want to reject if you know it's patent encumbered and the patent holder didn't submit the implementation (triggering the patent license part of the AL)
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On May 31, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
>>> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
>>> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
>>> member, what do I do?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Geir.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I'd think you'd want to reject if you know it's patent encumbered and the patent holder didn't submit the implementation (triggering the patent license part of the AL)
>
> geir
>
> On May 31, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
>> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
>> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
>> member, what do I do?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I'd think you'd want to reject if you know it's patent encumbered and the patent holder didn't submit the implementation (triggering the patent license part of the AL)
geir
On May 31, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
> member, what do I do?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
On 05/31/2011 08:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I am just a simple PMC member. I may even be a simple-minded PMC
> member. As a matter of policy, should I and my colleagues attempt to
> judge the risk of litigation, or should any case like this come,
> specifically, to legal-discuss?
I personally think it's usually not worth worrying much about patent
infringement in most cases until a patent owner expresses concern, e.g.,
by threatening a user with litigation or demanding licensing fees.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Doug,
I am just a simple PMC member. I may even be a simple-minded PMC
member. As a matter of policy, should I and my colleagues attempt to
judge the risk of litigation, or should any case like this come,
specifically, to legal-discuss?
--benson
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 02:37 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
>> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
>> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
>> member, what do I do?
>
> The risk of any piece of software being accused by a litigious patent
> owner as implementing some patent is never non-zero. Whether a patent
> is valid and whether a given piece of software implements the patent can
> only be conclusively resolved by a court. Until then we need to
> estimate the risk to a project.
>
> It depends in part on the likelihood that the owner of the patent will
> seek license fees from Apache's users. Google has a patent on a
> technique called MapReduce. Apache Hadoop implements a technique called
> MapReduce inspired by a technical paper published by the authors of the
> patent. Google has, to date, not sought license fees for any patents it
> owns. So, while their patent may create some risk for Hadoop, that risk
> might be small.
>
> Other considerations when evaluating risk are whether the invention is
> central to the project or whether it might easily be removed without
> greatly impairing the project. Also consider whether other (perhaps
> slightly inferior) methods might be used instead if the project is ever
> accused of infringing the patent.
>
> Doug
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
On 05/31/2011 02:37 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and
> notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm
> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC
> member, what do I do?
The risk of any piece of software being accused by a litigious patent
owner as implementing some patent is never non-zero. Whether a patent
is valid and whether a given piece of software implements the patent can
only be conclusively resolved by a court. Until then we need to
estimate the risk to a project.
It depends in part on the likelihood that the owner of the patent will
seek license fees from Apache's users. Google has a patent on a
technique called MapReduce. Apache Hadoop implements a technique called
MapReduce inspired by a technical paper published by the authors of the
patent. Google has, to date, not sought license fees for any patents it
owns. So, while their patent may create some risk for Hadoop, that risk
might be small.
Other considerations when evaluating risk are whether the invention is
central to the project or whether it might easily be removed without
greatly impairing the project. Also consider whether other (perhaps
slightly inferior) methods might be used instead if the project is ever
accused of infringing the patent.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Emmanuel,
I quite agree. As a PMC member, I need to know what to do when a less
cynical contributor shows up on the doorstep who has never read this
advice.
In the case at hand, someone turned up at Mahout and wrote, 'I've got
a student implementing PageRank, and I've heard that it is patented by
Stanford. What are the rules?'
I pointed him at the iCLA, which calls for contributors to disclose,
and I gently reminded him that 'having heard' is not the same thing as
'knowing.' Unfortunately, he did not take the hint, and is off asking
Stanford. Anticipating a patch, I'm wondering about the next step
after the contributor discloses. Geir's answer is a start.
--benson
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
<el...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/31/11 4:06 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> Again sorry for the wording, I really forgot that all people subscribed to
>> legal-discuss are well aware that patent questions are almost never trivial.
>>
>>
>> Back to the topic:
>>
>> There are a few patent search sites on the web. I guess the most prominent
>> one is:
>>
>> http://patft.uspto.gov/
>>
>>
>> The following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_ suggestion (Larry and
>> others, please comment):
>> If you have a Patent Number and the source code in question, then we at
>> least know how to _not_ do it if you would like to re-implement this
>> feature.
>>
>> There are also chances that anyone knows a similar way how to solve the
>> source goals in a way which is known to be prior art (a solution which was
>> already used way before the patent was filed) and thus the patent does not
>> bite us.
>>
>> Working around patent issues is to some degree the exact opposite to
>> working around IP issues: Instead of _not_ looking at the prior code, you
>> _must_ look at the patented solution to explicitly avoid it.
>
> Sorry to interrupt, but for my education, please enlighten me : I have
> always been told (not by lawyers, you guess) that the best is to
> specifically _not_ to check the patent, and ignore it completely. I mean,
> most - if not all of them - software patents are absolutely trivial and
> prior art is likely to exist anyway, so why the hell should we waste some
> time trying to workaround such potentially invalid claims ?
>
> All in all, if it costs money to defend yourself against a litigation for a
> patent violation, it also costs time and money for those who register them,
> better let them be the fool in this game, no ? Not to mention that not
> knowing the patent might imply that you implemented it by mistake, in good
> faith...
>
> Or may be I'm just totally naive...
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 5/31/11 9:05 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> This is not general legal advice outside of Apache. Do what your own company
> attorney orders you to do. But in Apache, read and learn!
Aye aye, sir !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jim Jagielski asked:
> So, in general, you feel that reading a patent, whether you think
> you infringe, think you dont't, or have no idea what infringe
> means, is generally a safe thing to do?
>
> I am honestly curious because we seem to go round-and-round
> with some people saying to avoid patents like the plague and
> others saying reading them are no big deal, no matter what.
Jim and others,
I have said, and I will say again, that the entire social purpose of patents
is to make inventions public. The notion that ignorance is bliss in such a
situation is ridiculous.
Others may disagree. I will say that I will willingly defend Apache Software
Foundation from stupid accusations of willful infringement merely because
Apache members try to understand a patent by reading it.
This is not general legal advice outside of Apache. Do what your own company
attorney orders you to do. But in Apache, read and learn!
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:50 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
>
> So, in general, you feel that reading a patent, whether you think
> you infringe, think you dont't, or have no idea what infringe
> means, is generally a safe thing to do?
>
> I am honestly curious because we seem to go round-and-round
> with some people saying to avoid patents like the plague and
> others saying reading them are no big deal, no matter what.
>
> On May 31, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> > "Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ..."
> >
> > Offer it a drink or two, get yourselves soused, and then read the
> patent. Learn something useful.
> >
> > /Larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
So, in general, you feel that reading a patent, whether you think
you infringe, think you dont't, or have no idea what infringe
means, is generally a safe thing to do?
I am honestly curious because we seem to go round-and-round
with some people saying to avoid patents like the plague and
others saying reading them are no big deal, no matter what.
On May 31, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> "Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ..."
>
> Offer it a drink or two, get yourselves soused, and then read the patent. Learn something useful.
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
"Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ..."
Offer it a drink or two, get yourselves soused, and then read the patent. Learn something useful.
/Larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 5/31/11 5:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/31/2011 9:24 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Sorry to interrupt, but for my education, please enlighten me : I have always been told
>> (not by lawyers, you guess) that the best is to specifically _not_ to check the patent,
>> and ignore it completely.
> Emmanuel, there is a significant difference between 1) exploring the
> entire patent sphere for any potential infringement, and 2) following
> due diligence when a specific patent is brought to the attention of a
> committer or the PMC.
>
> In the later case, "I won't read the patent" is not likely a safe defense,
> and particularly irksome if one of those who didn't read it happened to be
> the one aware of prior art that would invalidate the patent ;-)
Makes sense.
That answers a part of my question. And, yes, this patent system is just
totally insane.
One of the biggest problem we have, we european, is that most of the
countries we are living in don't allow any kind of software patent.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
On 5/31/2011 9:24 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt, but for my education, please enlighten me : I have always been told
> (not by lawyers, you guess) that the best is to specifically _not_ to check the patent,
> and ignore it completely.
Emmanuel, there is a significant difference between 1) exploring the
entire patent sphere for any potential infringement, and 2) following
due diligence when a specific patent is brought to the attention of a
committer or the PMC.
In the later case, "I won't read the patent" is not likely a safe defense,
and particularly irksome if one of those who didn't read it happened to be
the one aware of prior art that would invalidate the patent ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I think you must make a difference what is trivial to YOU and what is trivial to the court. Seriously: would _you_ have granted the Amazon 1-click patent?
Again: this all is out of my head, so take this with some salt:
1st
There is also a huge difference in the triviality level between different countries (and even different court districts it seems). Not to mention that in Europe _officially_ there have been no pure software patents afaik. In Europe patents needed some part of 'technizität' (which means some kind of physical real world effect) to be granted. Though this has been holed a bit in the last 2 decades :(
2nd
You are right that the ALv2 has kind of a safety net for preventing us (=the foundation!) from getting sued. But (again, Larry please confirm) this imo doesn't help us if we act too carelessly! In some European countries there is a construct called 'Eventualtäter' . This construct originally comes from the criminal law [1], but I've seen it handled in civil cases in analogy. The term would translate to 'if you don't breach it deliberately but if you must seriously consider your action breaching a law and you nontheless do it'...
Thus said, I'm not sure if it is wise to just close our eyes in such cases and walk away without doing something against it!
LieGrue,
strub
[1] https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Dokumentnummer=NOR12029546
§ 5. (1) second part of the sentence.
--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> From: Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 2:24 PM
> On 5/31/11 4:06 PM, Mark Struberg
> wrote:
> > Again sorry for the wording, I really forgot that all
> people subscribed to legal-discuss are well aware that
> patent questions are almost never trivial.
> >
> >
> > Back to the topic:
> >
> > There are a few patent search sites on the web. I
> guess the most prominent one is:
> >
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/
> >
> >
> > The following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_
> suggestion (Larry and others, please comment):
> > If you have a Patent Number and the source code in
> question, then we at least know how to _not_ do it if you
> would like to re-implement this feature.
> >
> > There are also chances that anyone knows a similar way
> how to solve the source goals in a way which is known to be
> prior art (a solution which was already used way before the
> patent was filed) and thus the patent does not bite us.
> >
> > Working around patent issues is to some degree the
> exact opposite to working around IP issues: Instead of _not_
> looking at the prior code, you _must_ look at the patented
> solution to explicitly avoid it.
> Sorry to interrupt, but for my education, please enlighten
> me : I have always been told (not by lawyers, you guess)
> that the best is to specifically _not_ to check the patent,
> and ignore it completely. I mean, most - if not all of them
> - software patents are absolutely trivial and prior art is
> likely to exist anyway, so why the hell should we waste some
> time trying to workaround such potentially invalid claims ?
>
> All in all, if it costs money to defend yourself against a
> litigation for a patent violation, it also costs time and
> money for those who register them, better let them be the
> fool in this game, no ? Not to mention that not knowing the
> patent might imply that you implemented it by mistake, in
> good faith...
>
> Or may be I'm just totally naive...
>
>
> -- Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 5/31/11 4:06 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Again sorry for the wording, I really forgot that all people subscribed to legal-discuss are well aware that patent questions are almost never trivial.
>
>
> Back to the topic:
>
> There are a few patent search sites on the web. I guess the most prominent one is:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/
>
>
> The following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_ suggestion (Larry and others, please comment):
> If you have a Patent Number and the source code in question, then we at least know how to _not_ do it if you would like to re-implement this feature.
>
> There are also chances that anyone knows a similar way how to solve the source goals in a way which is known to be prior art (a solution which was already used way before the patent was filed) and thus the patent does not bite us.
>
> Working around patent issues is to some degree the exact opposite to working around IP issues: Instead of _not_ looking at the prior code, you _must_ look at the patented solution to explicitly avoid it.
Sorry to interrupt, but for my education, please enlighten me : I have
always been told (not by lawyers, you guess) that the best is to
specifically _not_ to check the patent, and ignore it completely. I
mean, most - if not all of them - software patents are absolutely
trivial and prior art is likely to exist anyway, so why the hell should
we waste some time trying to workaround such potentially invalid claims ?
All in all, if it costs money to defend yourself against a litigation
for a patent violation, it also costs time and money for those who
register them, better let them be the fool in this game, no ? Not to
mention that not knowing the patent might imply that you implemented it
by mistake, in good faith...
Or may be I'm just totally naive...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Again sorry for the wording, I really forgot that all people subscribed to legal-discuss are well aware that patent questions are almost never trivial.
Back to the topic:
There are a few patent search sites on the web. I guess the most prominent one is:
http://patft.uspto.gov/
The following would be my _personal_ _amateurish_ suggestion (Larry and others, please comment):
If you have a Patent Number and the source code in question, then we at least know how to _not_ do it if you would like to re-implement this feature.
There are also chances that anyone knows a similar way how to solve the source goals in a way which is known to be prior art (a solution which was already used way before the patent was filed) and thus the patent does not bite us.
Working around patent issues is to some degree the exact opposite to working around IP issues: Instead of _not_ looking at the prior code, you _must_ look at the patented solution to explicitly avoid it.
I fear that discussing your patent problem in a 'general' manner would lead to a fat book full of 'if-then-else' answers. As for every correct answer, there is recursively always at least one exceptional case too...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 1:41 PM
> If you actually studied law, you know
> more than I do. That's what I
> needed to know :-)
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Benson, I'm sorry if my wording was too strong. What I
> meant is that patent law questions are always very difficult
> to handle. And IF the opponent party likes to go to court it
> might be very expensive. And even if the facts seem 100%
> clear to us, the outcome is still absolutely open. But this
> is actually true for every case which goes to court. There
> is a saying: to be justified and to get justice are two
> completely different things.
> >
> > And yes, I've studied iura at the Juridicum in
> Vienna but I'm not actively working in this area. Also my
> knowledge is mostly limited to European law and the basics
> of international law. So I'd consider myself as well
> educated amateur in this area.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar
> ...
> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> I have learned that almost any question posted
> here will
> >> elicit a
> >> strongly-worded response from you. With all due
> respect,
> >> what I wish I
> >> knew is whether you know any more than I do about
> the
> >> subject. Have
> >> you IP legal training, or are you a fellow
> enthusiastic
> >> amateur?
> >>
> >> --benson
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Of what kind is the patent?
> >> > Do you have the patent number where it is
> filed
> >> under?
> >> > And the source code? Does it really infringe
> the
> >> patent, or is it just an empty claim?
> >> > Is the patent a trivial patent which should
> get
> >> revoked anyway?
> >> >
> >> > software patents suck :( ...
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> >> >> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into
> a bar
> >> ...
> >> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
> >> >> So, respecting the icla, someone
> >> >> submits a patch to a project and
> >> >> notifies that some university claims a
> patent on
> >> the
> >> >> algorithm
> >> >> therein. The code is the 'original work'
> of the
> >> submitter.
> >> >> As a PMC
> >> >> member, what do I do?
> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
If you actually studied law, you know more than I do. That's what I
needed to know :-)
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Benson, I'm sorry if my wording was too strong. What I meant is that patent law questions are always very difficult to handle. And IF the opponent party likes to go to court it might be very expensive. And even if the facts seem 100% clear to us, the outcome is still absolutely open. But this is actually true for every case which goes to court. There is a saying: to be justified and to get justice are two completely different things.
>
> And yes, I've studied iura at the Juridicum in Vienna but I'm not actively working in this area. Also my knowledge is mostly limited to European law and the basics of international law. So I'd consider myself as well educated amateur in this area.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM
>> Mark,
>>
>> I have learned that almost any question posted here will
>> elicit a
>> strongly-worded response from you. With all due respect,
>> what I wish I
>> knew is whether you know any more than I do about the
>> subject. Have
>> you IP legal training, or are you a fellow enthusiastic
>> amateur?
>>
>> --benson
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Of what kind is the patent?
>> > Do you have the patent number where it is filed
>> under?
>> > And the source code? Does it really infringe the
>> patent, or is it just an empty claim?
>> > Is the patent a trivial patent which should get
>> revoked anyway?
>> >
>> > software patents suck :( ...
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into a bar
>> ...
>> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
>> >> So, respecting the icla, someone
>> >> submits a patch to a project and
>> >> notifies that some university claims a patent on
>> the
>> >> algorithm
>> >> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the
>> submitter.
>> >> As a PMC
>> >> member, what do I do?
>> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Benson, I'm sorry if my wording was too strong. What I meant is that patent law questions are always very difficult to handle. And IF the opponent party likes to go to court it might be very expensive. And even if the facts seem 100% clear to us, the outcome is still absolutely open. But this is actually true for every case which goes to court. There is a saying: to be justified and to get justice are two completely different things.
And yes, I've studied iura at the Juridicum in Vienna but I'm not actively working in this area. Also my knowledge is mostly limited to European law and the basics of international law. So I'd consider myself as well educated amateur in this area.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM
> Mark,
>
> I have learned that almost any question posted here will
> elicit a
> strongly-worded response from you. With all due respect,
> what I wish I
> knew is whether you know any more than I do about the
> subject. Have
> you IP legal training, or are you a fellow enthusiastic
> amateur?
>
> --benson
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Of what kind is the patent?
> > Do you have the patent number where it is filed
> under?
> > And the source code? Does it really infringe the
> patent, or is it just an empty claim?
> > Is the patent a trivial patent which should get
> revoked anyway?
> >
> > software patents suck :( ...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into a bar
> ...
> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
> >> So, respecting the icla, someone
> >> submits a patch to a project and
> >> notifies that some university claims a patent on
> the
> >> algorithm
> >> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the
> submitter.
> >> As a PMC
> >> member, what do I do?
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Mark,
I have learned that almost any question posted here will elicit a
strongly-worded response from you. With all due respect, what I wish I
knew is whether you know any more than I do about the subject. Have
you IP legal training, or are you a fellow enthusiastic amateur?
--benson
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Of what kind is the patent?
> Do you have the patent number where it is filed under?
> And the source code? Does it really infringe the patent, or is it just an empty claim?
> Is the patent a trivial patent which should get revoked anyway?
>
> software patents suck :( ...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
>> So, respecting the icla, someone
>> submits a patch to a project and
>> notifies that some university claims a patent on the
>> algorithm
>> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter.
>> As a PMC
>> member, what do I do?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Of what kind is the patent?
Do you have the patent number where it is filed under?
And the source code? Does it really infringe the patent, or is it just an empty claim?
Is the patent a trivial patent which should get revoked anyway?
software patents suck :( ...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ...
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 12:37 PM
> So, respecting the icla, someone
> submits a patch to a project and
> notifies that some university claims a patent on the
> algorithm
> therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter.
> As a PMC
> member, what do I do?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org