Re: nomarch-1.2 - Problems with RLE patent 4,586,027
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 06:32, Will Newton wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:58 am, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > No effective preventative measures seem to exist, and it seems that the
> > first step a would-be plaintiff is apt to take before considering any
> > potentially expensive legal action (in terms of financial resources or
> > publicity) is send a cease-and-desist letter from their legal department.
>
> The only thing that can be done, is where it is noted that there is a patent
> infringement possibility, note this and attempt to find prior art. That is
> the only way to protect yourself. Then when the cease and desist letter
> arrives you can point them to your research.
Well, in that spirit, I can claim prior art to the Marimba patent on
paid work I did in the 1996-1997 time frame. I wrote a Windows-based
update program for a proprietary client application that downloaded
updates to the application and applied them via a Web server. It was
able to grab updated data files as well as changed program files; the
latter were distributed as bundles.
So, if Debian gets sued over the Marimba patent and apt, I should be
able to dig up some information to prove prior art.
Not that better examples of prior art don't exist, of course. But every
little bit counts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: