| |||||||||||||
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsit will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsPosted Jan 6, 2013 1:50 UTC (Sun) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups by man_ls Parent article: The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? (Groklaw) People who want to protect their ideas are usually those who hire programmers. They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
(Log in to post comments)
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 7, 2013 20:39 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
If they want to protect their inventions by patenting it is likely they will get a patent attorney or a patent agent who in turn will point out the possibility of infringing rights held by others. The first Official Action in the patent prosecution can indicate a problem but to be more sure it is normal to conduct a freedom to operate analysis.
Around here we do not expect our clients to be familiar with IPR and if necessary it is customary to give an introduction to how IPR and in particular patenting works and thus inform them of the importance of rights held by others.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 8:32 UTC (Tue) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
> they will get a patent attorney or a patent agent who in turn will point out the possibility of infringing rights held by others
Sure, but you don't need a patent agent for that, as soon as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing. Well, maybe even the for loop for all I (and anyone) know.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 12:38 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing.
A bit stretched, but essentially correct. It's very difficult to design applications that work as users expect (using established file formats, algorithms and UI patterns) without violating patents left and right. The paradigmatic example is MP3. This seriously hinders interoperability, and thus is a great prejudice for users.
In my opinion, at the very least, patents should be banned outright from standards, or alternatively mandating that all patents be free to use for interoperability and information exchange purposes.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:36 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
OK, so in a couple of days we have progressed from
[proski] > They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
to
[micka] > as soon as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing
That was quick.
Who knows Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:45 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Given that patents are a minefield that may or may not explode under your feet, depending on what you do and how deep your pockets are, both statements may or may not be true simultaneously. Apparently in the US you don't even need to develop code, you are infringing just by using a scanner. So yes, any developer may be infringing and may be violating some patents. Or not.Not the ideal situation in any legal framework.
Who knows Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:51 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It is a pretty ideal situation for lawyers.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 9, 2013 8:03 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
I don't understand your comment (genuinely). What do you mean ?
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 22, 2013 18:16 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
I meant that the transition from not realising one might infringe a patent to assuming one practically always assumes to infringe patents was rather quick.
|
|||||||||||||