On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:55:19PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > 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." Being aware that there exist methods of decoding a DVD which infringe patents does not mean that they infringe the method you are using to decode a DVD (anything that you cannot avoid infringing must also be invalid, because it's obvious; any action that you are forced to take has to be obvious). > The treble damage penalty is not mandatory and is aimed at big corporations > using patents of other big corporations. That's always a joke. These things are meaningless to big corporations; patent penalties are just a slap on the wrist to them. Their only significant application is when big corporations with big mobs of lawyers go after little guys. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature