On Thursday 24 February 2005 09:08 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (At least this particular case has a reasonably descriptive filename--I'm > probably not going to accidentally read a file named "patents.txt". Too > often, people start talking about patent specifics in the middle of an > email ...) > > > Further more, we would have a hell of a time proving that we aren't aware > > of the patent... we know about it, anyone on this list, the DPL, we all > > know about the patents. The more operative question is if we found the > > I don't even know which patents are under discussion, and I certainly don't > know their scope; all I know is it's something related to DVD decoding. > > -- > Glenn Maynard
Doesn't sound like a particularilly compelling defense to me should you ever be sued for patent infringment... "No your honor, I wasn't aware of the specific patent number, only extensive media coverage, e-mail discussions, and filed name patents.txt.gz." The treble damage penalty is not mandatory and is aimed at big corporations using patents of other big corporations. As an equitable doctrine, us little guys in the shadows (even companies owned by us little guys in the shadows) are not going to face the wrath of trebble damages. And like I said... patent infringment must be willful. More than 50% of patents get overturned when they go to court, so unless the patent in question has already been held up in court (which the ones in that file have not, if you read the file), its more likely than not that you weren't even violating it, much less willfully :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
