On 2008-10-03, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/
Of course. > When talking about legal matters, it's kind of an important > distinction. Once again we see why a spell-checker is no substitue for proof-reading. A bit of googling finds that 35 USC 284 allows the court to increase damages up to triple the compensatory value. Whether or not the infringement was willful is often a primary consideration in that decision. http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Damage_Relief_for_Patent_Infringement.html http://www.ipwatchdog.com/willful_patent_infringement.html http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2007DLTR0006.html If the infringer never new the invention was patented, then the infringement can't be willful. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm ANN LANDERS!! at I can SHOPLIFT!! visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
