But maybe...
But maybe...
Posted Jun 8, 2006 9:07 UTC (Thu) by eyal (subscriber, #949)In reply to: Which is why ... by AnswerGuy
Parent article: How clean must the room be?
the code should be delivered to TI with a letter that says:
"We've reversed engineered your driver, and we've written a new driver that does not contain any code copied from yours. Please inspect out code, and inform us of any violation of your copyrights over the code. If you don't respond within XX days, we'll assume that there aren't any such violations."
IANAL, but at least in some jurisdictions it will be very hard for TI to claim wrong-doing in the future.
Eyal.
Posted Jun 8, 2006 12:25 UTC (Thu)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link]
Posted Jun 8, 2006 14:44 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 9, 2006 2:26 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
May be U.S. "most junior litigator will shoot it full of holes inside a minute", but in Russia it works just fine. Of course you need registered letter (the kind used to deliver official documents). Not only an envelope is supposed to be impenetrable, but letter must also contain number and this number is registered in central office - exactly to make it possible to prove that this letter was indeed sent by this time and date. Law declares that such number and/or envelope is enough to prevent $1'000'000'000 fine in tax avoidance case (at least it does in Russia) - what reason do you have against using it for copyright case with many times less money at stake ? Again: different countries, different law...
Posted Jun 8, 2006 17:01 UTC (Thu)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link] (2 responses)
I'm pretty sure that TI has no obligation to do that work.
It would be a bit like sending a letter to someone, where you explain to them that if they don't answer back within XX days, you'll consider it ok that you take their car.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 8:10 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
In the TI case, you're saying "we believe we're clean. Please will you confirm everything is okay".
In your car example, it's "we're going to break the law, and if you don't tell us otherwise we'll assume we have your permission".
The difference is clear and simple. Is the basic act (absent permission) legit or not. In the first case it's "we believe it's legit, but we would like your confirmation". In the second case it's "we know it's not legit unless you give permission".
Cheers,
Posted Jun 15, 2006 14:14 UTC (Thu)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link]
The problem is not that you're seeking justification for something you know is illegal; it's that you're assuming that when TI doesn't say anything, they really are saying "you got our blessings". And *that* is something that you can't do, of course, and that won't be worth a penny if the whole thing should go to court later on.
Need to appeal to their bottom line:But maybe...
"We'd like to tout TI as a progressive, user-oriented company, committed to fairness and reasonability on all sides of the patent/trademark/copyright questions involved in this bit of code. Help us advertise TI."
I hope nobody takes this advice. This is as bad as the old "put something in an envelope, mail it to yourself, and submit the unopened, postmarked envelope to the court as legal evidence" technique. Te most junior litigator will shoot it full of holes inside a minute. It's just not worth your time or the price of the stamp.But maybe...
But maybe...
I can't really see this working...But maybe...
Actually, there's a BIG difference between the two examples.But maybe...
Wol
The two examples have something in common, too, though - namely, in both cases, you're essentially saying "we assume that your not reacting in any way at all means that you really are reacting a certain way (that's favourable for us)".But maybe...