On 12/18/06, Trevor Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > where does the burden of proof lie in a US patent case?
The proof is already in the hands of the party with the patent grant. A patent grants them exlusive rights to the "invention", in a way they "own" the idea/knowledge for the invention. Unauthorized use of the "invention" by another party constitutes patent infringement. The fact that you were not aware that the patent exists does not hold. > is it the responsibility of the patent-holder to prove that the defendant is > violating the patent or is is the responsibility of the accused to prove > they aren't. Most patent infringement cases get settled out of court through licensing or cross-licensing deals. If a patent infringement case does go into court, it is the defendants burden to attempt to invalidate the patent claim. In other words, the plaintiff already holds proof that you used his "invention" without due authorization and compensation. Short of saying that you are "stealing" from him. He has proof of ownership: the patent grant. You have a product that uses his "invention". > The argument in this thread seems to suggest that if i hold a patent then i > can go and accuse anyone i like of infringing it and force them to provide > proof that they aren't... as we all know proving a negative can be a > somewhat tricky procedure. This suggests, though, that if i received a > letter from the solicitors of a company who had managed to patent the > for-loop that i'd have to go through the process of proving they hadn't - > which is the responsibility of the people who issue the patents in the first > place.... "Argument" is a bit harsh. I was not arguing about anything in the first place, nor was it my intention to start one. I wanted some clarification on some concerns that my employer has raised about CakePHP. As I have said in an earlier post, gwoo has already managed to address those concerns. The exchange you are reading now between Mariano and I is just an unpleasant side-effect. I really hope it dies down soon before other people start throwing their 2 cents in and totally muddle and confuse things. At the heart of the "argument" is that the USPTO's current system of reviewing and processing patents *suck*. It makes it ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous individuals or corporations wanting to cash in on the hard work done by others. If ever a patent troll tries to attack CakePHP and its users, what is the CSF's role in mitigating or handling such an attack? Also raised by my employer is the state of IP in CakePHP. Contributions come into CakePHP from two channels that I can think of: 1. Through direct contributions from a company or individual, asserted through the CSSL or CSL. 2. Through Trac. Which as far as I can tell, makes it easy to insert code into CakePHP. > bit of a minefield, really. Sad, but true. -- _nimrod_a_abing_ [?] http://abing.gotdns.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cake PHP" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
