6 ms·

"I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble" is a sad excuse, not a legitimate reason.

emiliobumachar 10y ago
The current state of patent law is that the only way you can be sure not to infringe on it is to never build anything, ever. In that environment, I can actually sympathize with "I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble".
mcbits 10y ago
If it's a "dealing pot" sort of infringement (e.g. against patents that shouldn't exist, but do), then it's a legitimate reason to hide their tracks. If it's a "robbing banks" level of infringement, then it's not.
- eropple 10y ago
  That, and robbing banks is a violation of criminal law. Patent infringement is a tort. Way different set of concerns.
  - axonic 10y ago
    For those interested, see Schillinger v. United States [1], 1894 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163
    - mcbits 10y ago
      The distinction between crimes and torts really has no impact on the analogy...
khedoros1 10y ago
That would be true, if the laws weren't harmful on their own. 20 year patents are way too long, and software patents are ridiculous. Only 5 more years before you can write a linked list with multiple traversal orders without licensing it from the patent holder! https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023
Qwertious 10y ago
What if the laws are dumb and dangerously arbitrary? Like, say, patent laws. To be fair, it's not so much "laws" as "things people can sue you over", but that distinction doesn't become relevant until after the lawsuit and large amounts of money down the drain. And then they disappear without recouping your costs, because they're a goddamn shell company. It is a sad excuse, but only because we live in a sad reality with massively broken patent laws.
- dTal 10y ago
  Which will never change as long as the major companies evade the issue like this, while the smaller ones are crushed.

The current state of patent law is that the only way you can be sure not to infringe on it is to never build anything, ever. In that environment, I can actually sympathize with "I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble".

mcbits 10y ago

If it's a "dealing pot" sort of infringement (e.g. against patents that shouldn't exist, but do), then it's a legitimate reason to hide their tracks. If it's a "robbing banks" level of infringement, then it's not.

eropple 10y ago
That, and robbing banks is a violation of criminal law. Patent infringement is a tort. Way different set of concerns.
- axonic 10y ago
  For those interested, see Schillinger v. United States [1], 1894 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163
  - mcbits 10y ago
    The distinction between crimes and torts really has no impact on the analogy...

khedoros1 10y ago

That would be true, if the laws weren't harmful on their own. 20 year patents are way too long, and software patents are ridiculous. Only 5 more years before you can write a linked list with multiple traversal orders without licensing it from the patent holder! https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023

Qwertious 10y ago

What if the laws are dumb and dangerously arbitrary? Like, say, patent laws. To be fair, it's not so much "laws" as "things people can sue you over", but that distinction doesn't become relevant until after the lawsuit and large amounts of money down the drain. And then they disappear without recouping your costs, because they're a goddamn shell company. It is a sad excuse, but only because we live in a sad reality with massively broken patent laws.

dTal 10y ago
Which will never change as long as the major companies evade the issue like this, while the smaller ones are crushed.