| |||||||||||||
Long discussions about long namesLong discussions about long namesPosted May 5, 2009 17:15 UTC (Tue) by bfields (subscriber, #19510)In reply to: Long discussions about long names by iabervon Parent article: Long discussions about long names
I can't really see a point to such a patch; sure, it makes it impossible to prove that your device violates the patent by demonstrating that it actually creates such files, but with the code that would do it in the source, compiled, and installed, and just unreachable, I think it's unlikely that this detail would affect whether a patent suit could get filed and not get dismissed. I think of a patent as a monopoly on the commercial exploitation of an invention. It would be difficult for someone to argue that your GPS device's unreachable long-filename-creation code is really a selling point of the device.
(Log in to post comments)
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 17:39 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It would be difficult for someone to argue that your GPS device's unreachable long-filename-creation code is really a selling point of the device. I suspect that the TomTom GPS's long-filename-creation code was actually unreachable, simply because it probably wouldn't create files for direct human use, and developers would tend to pick something simple to save configuration in. But my point was that someone could sue you over having a long-filename-creation feature, and it would require arguing back and using evidence to demonstrate that it was unreachable, at which point you've wasted a bunch of money, which is what this exercise is intended to prevent. It's not about being right or not, it's about being so obviously right that there's no way the other side can claim that they even thought that they had a case, and the court blames them for wasting its time.
|
|||||||||||||