| |||||||||||||
they're not similar at allthey're not similar at allPosted Mar 29, 2013 15:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: there not similar at all by lxoliva Parent article: Google: Taking a stand on open source and patents
yes. my reading of it is that even when the patent is transferred to another entity (in that case it was because the company went bankrupt and their assets were transferred to a trust), the promise still exists, the same as a licence would.
But you're right that it's important to be sure about the details. I'll do a write up of the case tomorrow morning and put it here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/In_re_Spansion_by_US_Third_Circu...
(Log in to post comments)
they're not similar at all Posted Mar 30, 2013 5:39 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Now I'm not so sure. I read the court ruling a few times but I don't see where it discusses a patent being transferred to another entity.
Dennis Crouch's Patently-O is quite authoritative, and his summary is "Apple retains its license regardless of who buys the patent rights" - but it's not clear to me where he gets that from.
Maybe his summary is obvious when you know US bankruptcy law. But I don't.
Or maybe it's clear if you read the court cases referenced by that recent court case. I'll do that if I find time.
|
|||||||||||||