🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14818@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> Two more legalistic notes.  First, patents are presumed to be valid.
> If you're challenging a patent in court, the burden of proof is on
> you.

There's one big exception. If a patent holder sues you, but what you did
is entirely based on something published before the patent was filed,
you're automatically safe. All you have to do is prove that you were
working within the prior art, as described by that publication. The suit
will be thrown out.

> Second, *knowing infringement* of a patent is much worse; damages
> can be doubled or trebled, I believe.  You may or may not like the
> public-key patents -- but given that letter, if you go ahead and release
> your system, and if you lose in court, you're liable for serious bucks,
> because you have been warned.

Someone who implements a method doesn't necessarily infringe a patent on
that method. If he induces someone else to use the implementation, then
that other person has directly infringed---but that other person also
hasn't been warned. The implementor has been warned, but he's at worst a
contributory infringer. So the treble damage rule doesn't necessarily
apply.

---Dan