On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:15 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-10-03, greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven D'Aprano
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > (2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap to
> >> > read it with respect to patents and copyright.
> >> 
> >> That's not how patents work.
> >
> > I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as
> > I know, whether something is deemed a derivative work is
> > judged on the basis of how similar it is to another work,
> > not whether its author had knowledge of the other work.
> > As long as you express an idea in an original way, it
> > shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.
> 
> IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing
> punative damages.  If you knowingly and intentionally infringe
> a patent, I think you're libel for more damages than if you
> accidentally re-invent something.  At least that's what I was
> told...
> 

s/libel/liable/

When talking about legal matters, it's kind of an important distinction.


--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to