3 ms·

I wish people wouldn’t post direct links to patents. The advice from the IP lawyers at every company I’ve worked for (Microsoft, Dropbox, Amazon, Google) has b

by pacaro 9y ago

I wish people wouldn’t post direct links to patents. The advice from the IP lawyers at every company I’ve worked for (Microsoft, Dropbox, Amazon, Google) has been to never read patents or patent applications.

Hoagy 9y ago
Did they explain why?
- osteele 9y ago
  This is standard legal advice. It reduces the chance that an infringer will be found guilty of a willful violation, that results in treble damages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages
  - senatorobama 9y ago
    The U.S. has retarded laws.
wmblaettler 9y ago
I'm honestly curious what the aversion is to reading patents and patent applications. Is it to avoid suspect patent infringement by being able to claim ignorance? i.e. "I have not read any patent that relates to some work that I've created wholly on my own that out of coincidence achieves the same as a patented work." Does that actually hold up if defending IP?
- pacaro 9y ago
  Yeah, as osteele points out, it moves the needle from unknowing infringement to willful infringement. And willful infringement carries triple damages. When people have asked “how would they even know?”, there are usually two answers: 1) don’t underestimate what can come out in discovery, and 2) no lawyer is going to advise perjuring yourself
- dwheeler 9y ago
  > Does that actually hold up if defending IP? Yes. You are subject to triple damages if you read the patent, so it's foolish to read patents unless you have to. It's impossible to read all patents, and patents in almost all cases are useless, so "I didn't read the patent" is the normal case for software developers. Patents make no sense for software, and should be abolished for software.
ungzd 9y ago
It's still better to link directly than to "tech gadget news" websites (that are so popular on HN): their writers understand even less.
- pacaro 9y ago
  Yeah, it’s definitely a toss up, but because I can’t/won’t read a patent, but might read a discussion about it, in this case the techjunk article is counterintuitively preferable
Klinescat 9y ago
Why is that?
- Liquid_Fire 9y ago
  Because wilful violation of a patent can make you liable for triple the damages. It's much harder to claim it wasn't wilful if you've read the patent.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by pacaro 9y ago

Hoagy 9y ago

Did they explain why?

osteele 9y ago
This is standard legal advice. It reduces the chance that an infringer will be found guilty of a willful violation, that results in treble damages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages
- senatorobama 9y ago
  The U.S. has retarded laws.

wmblaettler 9y ago

I'm honestly curious what the aversion is to reading patents and patent applications. Is it to avoid suspect patent infringement by being able to claim ignorance? i.e. "I have not read any patent that relates to some work that I've created wholly on my own that out of coincidence achieves the same as a patented work." Does that actually hold up if defending IP?

pacaro 9y ago
Yeah, as osteele points out, it moves the needle from unknowing infringement to willful infringement. And willful infringement carries triple damages. When people have asked “how would they even know?”, there are usually two answers: 1) don’t underestimate what can come out in discovery, and 2) no lawyer is going to advise perjuring yourself
dwheeler 9y ago
> Does that actually hold up if defending IP? Yes. You are subject to triple damages if you read the patent, so it's foolish to read patents unless you have to. It's impossible to read all patents, and patents in almost all cases are useless, so "I didn't read the patent" is the normal case for software developers. Patents make no sense for software, and should be abolished for software.

ungzd 9y ago

It's still better to link directly than to "tech gadget news" websites (that are so popular on HN): their writers understand even less.

pacaro 9y ago
Yeah, it’s definitely a toss up, but because I can’t/won’t read a patent, but might read a discussion about it, in this case the techjunk article is counterintuitively preferable

Klinescat 9y ago

Why is that?

Liquid_Fire 9y ago
Because wilful violation of a patent can make you liable for triple the damages. It's much harder to claim it wasn't wilful if you've read the patent.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]