🚀 go-pugleaf

krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>>One reason Xerox is sueing Apple now may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently
>>awarded patents on the Star operating environment.  Patent infringements are
>>usually more easily proven than copyright ones.

>     Wouldn't a recent patent be a bit worthless in court, considering when
>Apple created the Mac, it wan't infringing in a patent?  Why would the Mac
>interface be damaging Xerox _only_ after they get a patent?  I can see Apple
>loosing copyright rights (I'm no lawyer) but $150 million?  "Just a thought."

As I recall, with a patent what counts is not when you were awarded the
patent but when you *filed* for it. It isn't uncommon for a patent to
take years to be awarded. If you were violating it after the filing but
before the award, too bad. You are in just as much trouble as someone 
whose violation occured *after* the award.

Another cute detail about patents. It doesn't matter if you arrived at
the design independently. I.E. Phoenix -style "clean room coding" is not
a defense against a patent violation. If you use the patented idea you
must pay what the patent holder asks you to.

BTW, someone commented that they thought it wasn't legal to charge
different compabies different royalty fees. I believe that this is not
the case. And it is far from unheard of for the winner in a case like
this to slap a prevent punitive licensing agreement on the loser.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short