VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Posted Jun 30, 2009 15:03 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
In reply to: VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds by drag
Parent article: VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

> By questioning the patent-workaround to much your admitting that your KNOWINGLY violating the patent.

Maybe. Or maybe not. I would say that the only thing you admit is that you know that the patent exists. Maybe the questioner doesn't understand the implementation, or the patent, or both. Maybe the patent is bogus, maybe the actual code does not infringe (aren't patents open to interpretation?), maybe...

> I am not a lawyer. I haven't looked at the code, I haven't looked at the patents in question. etc etc.

Me neither.

VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Posted Jun 30, 2009 16:59 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

No. If your arguing that a patch doesn't work around a patent then essentially your admiting that you've read the implimentation and that you know your currently violating it.

That's the only way that a judge is going to interpret that.

It's just logical. How is somebody going to 'poke holes' in a patent-workaround when they don't even know the patent itself?

VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

Posted Jun 30, 2009 19:09 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

When did being knowledgeable or informed become a prerequisite for having an opinion on the internet?