decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
So it's up to us | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
So it's up to us
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, June 09 2013 @ 12:31 PM EDT
I disagree. Based on what the president has said, I think the proposed law is a
good thing.

The argument you are raising is not how the currently law works. The proposed
changes are not worsening the situation because your argument is not how the law
is currently working to begin with.

As a different but related point, please understand what is the scope of this
law supported by the president. The issue is liability, not patent validity or
infringement. This new law is about who is liable assuming the patent is valid
and infringement is found.

I have not read the new bill, but based on what the president has said, I expect
that they will look at whether the claim is valid and infringed when the user
uses the software as it is intended to be used. If infringement is found, the
*maker* of the software will be found liable and the user will be shielded from
liability. This is an improvement over the current situation where the *user*
could be found liable. This improvement is a good thing.

I don't expect this law to change anything on validity or infringement. The
president has a separate initiative to tighten the application of the current
law on functional claiming. This part doesn't require making a new law because
it is a tightening of a law that already exists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )