4 ms·
The general recommendation for developers is to not look at patents ever. Infringing a patent you know about is more expensive than getting blind sided. Yes, t
by jws 14y ago
The general recommendation for developers is to not look at patents ever. Infringing a patent you know about is more expensive than getting blind sided.
Yes, the patent still applies.
As John Carmac (Doom/Quake engine writer) said:
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- ryandvm 14y agoHorrifying doesn't mean it's not true.
- vitalique 14y agoBut on what basis can a developer be accused of knowing something if he chooses to deliberately deny knowing it? Or, put it another way, is there a reliable method for a developer to prove that he knew nothing about the patent in question? Because, if there is such a method, I don't understand why not to look at patents. Also, if there is no such a method, then again - I can be accused of anything, so why not to go look at it anyway? The idea of patenting paths of reasoning is such a nonsense.
- jws 14y agoIf you are willing to lie under oath for unlawful personal gain, then the laws will guide your actions in a different manner.
- vitalique 14y agoThis is not exactly what I'm trying to understand. Is the oath enough (when we're talking about $368 million)? Will there be no investigation of what I said under oath anyway? What do you mean by 'am I willing to lie under oath'? If I'm infringing, but there is no certain (more or less) way of proving I knew about the damn patents, I am willing to lie. I am going to lie, and I'm not announcing it to the court, of course. The whole concept of oath seems to be very weak.