Re: [ox-en] open standards
- From: Timm Murray <hardburn runbox.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 15:48:45 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 26 May 2002 14:16, Stefan Merten wrote:
<>
However, what is actually the bad thing about such a patent? Isn't the
meaning of such a patent more or less reduced to a enforced need to
name the originator of the idea? I'm really wondering.
Perhaps, but if my knowledge of IP law, you don't need a patent to do that. A
patent law (in theory) says that you can have a temperary monopoly on an
invention, but you must discolse everything about how it works. This means
the public has full access to making their own version of the device once
your patent expires (that is why you can't (legaly) reverse engineer patented
devices--it would go agains the intent of patent law). Additionally, any
previous work in this area may invalidate your patent.
The patent office/court system can make a better determination about any
previous work if it is well documented. So, it follows that the better your
work is documented, the less likely any future patent infringement claims
against you will hold up.
Thus, all you need to make sure everyone knows you invented a device is to
throughly document it and slap a copyright notice on the documentation (you'd
probably want a BSD-style license).
(Of course, I am not a lawyer. I don't know how applicable this is to
international IP law. And there is the whole problem of Theory vs.
Practice.)
- --
There are things worse than Perl . . . ASP comes to mind.
--"Shinobi", irc.openprojects.org, #debian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjzxSjAACgkQqpueKcacfLSbSACgruLiSfpLxD1hwgFv2mmWu2cA
MbcAoIj0QZCRIF63v9SD38WUr0y14n8b
=GS62
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/