3 ms·
This is the first time I've seen "put your head in the sand" as an actual recommendation, instead of being characterized as something not to do. And as far as
by carussell 9y ago
This is the first time I've seen "put your head in the sand" as an actual recommendation, instead of being characterized as something not to do. And as far as recommendations go, it's more than a little bit nutty.
- chc 9y agoIt's actually a common policy when it comes to patents. If you are found to infringe on a patent and it can be shown that you knew about it, the penalties are much harsher. This is one of the many reasons people consider the patent system to be badly broken.
- jakelazaroff 9y agoIs there no similar penalty for intentionally foregoing due diligence specifically to avoid harsher penalties?
- chc 9y agoAFAIK, no. I don't know of any case law that says the reason you were unaware of the patent is relevant; just whether the infringement was "willful" — one component of which being knowledge of the patent.
- Lazare 9y agoThere is not. If you know the patent exists, you get higher (I think triple?) damages. If you don't, you don't. And you have no obligation to check. Example: There is a patent in the US on ordering food from a menu online. It's held by a NPE (aka, a patent troll), and they charge a fairly high license fee. Some people who offer online ordering to restaurants pay the license fee; others don't. If you don't pay, then you can afford to charge lower prices than your competitors. If you do pay, then it's in your interests to tell everyone you meet about the patent, because every person you tell is someone who now faces triple damages if they opt to use on your your non-paying competitors. Let me say that again, because it's so crazy: Some companies actually advertise their high prices, because a potential customer just reading their pricing page can thereafter no longer opt for a lower priced competitor without being subject to increased damages.
- rocqua 9y agoIn some sense, reading this comment is actually harmful. I now know of that patent, so would be subject to triple damages.
- optimuspaul 9y agoGood god how is that even patentable?? That's not at all novel.
- mort96 9y agoNeither novelity nor lack of prior art are requirements for getting a patent, it seems. If a patent has prior art, or is incredibly obvious, that might help your case in court if you're getting sued, but if you're an individual or small company getting sued for patent infringement by a company with an army of lawyers, you've already lost.
- wrs 9y agoNot at all. Willful infringement is grounds for triple damages. So "never, ever, ever look at patents unless an attorney asks you to" was the company policy at Microsoft and Apple when I was there, and at several other major tech companies whose policies I happen to have heard of. If you were to mention to a company attorney that you've looked at another entity's patent, there would be a loud screeching noise from the attorney and you'd be scheduled for an immediate refresher course on patent policy.
- slaymaker1907 9y agoIsn't the point of the patent system supposed to be to encourage people to open up ideas for general use instead of hoarding them?