On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:55:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Now, in Andrew's example: > > Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in > > its license. > > > > Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes > > an extra feature. > Here, company B must license all its patents which apply to the modified > version for use with the modified version or any subsequent modified > version. Otherwise the version isn't free.... > > > Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by > > company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. > > > > Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the > > modified version infringes some of its patents. > > If company B countersues alleging that the software released by A violates > its patents, then either > (1) the software released by B is covered by the same patents > or > (2) somehow, it isn't [Possible; B could have removed some patented features as well] > After thinking about it, these cases don't differ. But yes, it's irrelevant. The existence and status of any patents other than the ones I explicitly mentioned will not affect the outcome; A has a forcing move to destroy B's fork which they can exercise at their discretion. > Does A care about the countersuit? Maybe, if A absolutely wants to continue > distributing A's version of the software. Assume they've got huge reserves of cash and can just sit it out. It doesn't really matter; that countersuit cannot possibly result in B being permitted to continue their branch. > I suppose this is a case where A can screw B. Freedom to fork is effectively denied. This is reasonably simple to engineer just by patenting everything you can think of in the given field. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature