More FUD, and double-edged at that

Posted May 14, 2007 16:34 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It does make sense that two guys can independently and simultaneously invent something. But when some "invention" is done in passing and second "independent inventor" does not even realize it's "invention"... this cast the doubt on the quality of said patent. Big time. It does not mean that the patent if bogus, but it certainly looks strange...

After all patent must be novel and non-obvious. If someone invented the thing and not even realized that it's worth something... how can it be non-obvious ? Are all Linux developers geniuses ?

Posted May 14, 2007 20:57 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Not really. Patents are created to better protect inventor. Inventor can be single person and if s/he has no resources to monitor all firms in existence - it's Ok. If someone is using your patented invention without patent - you can collect money for old violations easily. But if you do know about violation and do nothing - you effectively Ok this usage (Rambus DDR patents). You can change patent policy at any time - but again even this way has limitations (see Phillis CD patents for example). In short: once you've declared that you know that someone is violations your patent - better to act quick.

Posted May 15, 2007 0:28 UTC (Tue) by stephen_pollei (guest, #23348) [Link]

says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an 
action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall 
consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to 
    a request for disclosure, ...
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of 
good faith:
        (i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
        (ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving 
    the request for disclosure; and
        (iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the 
    manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier, 
    of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a 
    request for a written statement that the process claimed in any 
    patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such 
    product.

The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is 
evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating 
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due 
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or 
like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary 
or practicable to avoid infringement.
    (4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure'' 
means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture 
of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to 
that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then 
reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section 
271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or 
used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for 
disclosure is further limited to a request--
        (i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United 
    States in the sale of the same type of products as those 
    manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which 
    includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to 
    engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
        (ii) which is made by such person before the person's first 
    importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product 
    produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice 
    of infringement with respect to the product; and
        (iii) which includes a representation by the person making the 
    request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified 
    pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer 
    is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the 
    person making the request, and will request from that manufacturer 
    or supplier a written statement that none of the processes claimed 
    in those patents is used in the manufacture of the product.

    (B) In the case of a request for disclosure received by a person to 
whom a patent is licensed, that person shall either identify the patent 
or promptly notify the licensor of the request for disclosure. "