|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 06:51 AM EST |
I'm not sure how that is actually wrong by a strict reading of the law as it
currently stands.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JK Finn on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 09:31 AM EST |
I don't know how you software programmers are
going to write
software any more.
Easy, just leave US out of the picture for
now.
"Not licensed to use where installation and/or
usage could be
construed as a patent infringement
under local jurisprudence."
JK
Finn [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Back in the 1970s National Lampoon brought out a special
magazine with a fold out map of North America. Way up in
northern Canada was an area marked as "Amanaland".
--
Bondfire
for all you non-americans, Amana used to be a big
manufacturer of home refrigerators and freezers.
"'A' is an artist out for a walk"
"'B' is a bore that engaged him in talk"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: luvr on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:44 PM EST |
“Obviously, automated updates are out of the
question.Obviously, automated updates are out of the
question.”
Obviously, indeed... They're patented![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 08:26 PM EST |
Very amusing!
I really think that you should submit it to EFF or a similar entity, i.e.
someone who regularly submits amici briefs. Not sure if there is a potential
problem of your being on the opposite side of the Atlantic! Perhaps you could
license your submission CC and/or send it to a friend in the USA (to submit it
on your behalf).
The idea being that, IMHO, both the CAFC and the SCOTUS could benefit from
reading it.
As they say, "Many true words are spoken in jest!"
---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST |
If the person who created a patented work has not marked it, you cannot know if
you are violating a patent. By not marking a patented device you may improperly
induce infringement. that's why you see patent numbers on products, and patent
pending markings on devices.
Not sure what impact this would have were you sued for violating a patent. But
that would be my first line of defence.
But, IANAL, and so don't know whether or not such a defence would work. I know
this, that it is one defence sued by some of the really smart lawyers that
Groklaw has followed.
Just wanted to clear the FUD air on this. As a final note, THere are legal
notices in MS software which indicate they may have patents, and such, but no
application I've ever looked at lists any patents for it, with one exception.
The old Lempel-Ziv patent was marked.
See 35 U.S.C. ยง287(a) for more information. I don't know what use such a defence
would be, but if you are ever in such a situation make sure your lawyer examines
this possible defence which would limit damages at the least.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
