4 ms·

"You could develop a library in-house in a clean room and it could still infringe someone else's patent." IANAL, but, it is my understanding that if that's the

• Amorymeltzer 12y ago
  Novelty at the time, perhaps? You might be thinking of "non-obvious" but just because two people invented something doesn't make it obvious. More importantly, though, once the patent is granted it doesn't matter, you're in violation. That it shouldn't have been granted in the first place is a separate issue, and one that almost nobody is going to spend the time and money on to sue for a change.
• Igglyboo 12y ago
  You're thinking of reverse engineering.
• pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Patents are granted on who files for the patent first. The invention protected must be non-obvious to the notional skilled practitioner in the relevant arts and should never have been disclosed in public before (novelty).
• kibibu 12y ago
  It all depends on how the court sees it. See "Carmack's Reverse" - where John Carmack independently developed an acceleration for robust stencil shadows, documented his discovery and then had to capitulate to Creative Labs who owned a patent on the algorithm from a few months earlier.