[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] RAND issues
- From: Jeff Lowery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:10:28 -0700
> Oh, just like ICANN's dispute resolution policy for domain
> name conflicts. That
> works so well, we should definitely emulate it. Seriously,
> what makes you think
> that such a process won't be dominated/co-opted by the same
> companies that own
> most of the software patents now, and the patent lawyers who
> work for them?
It's much easier to criticize than make a constructive suggestion,
admittedly. I'm sure there's a working corrollary out in the big, wide world
that can emulated. All I'm certain of is that the current process that
relies on courts to settle patent disputes is broken in the favor of deep
pockets. To say that deep pockets will always find ways to co-opt a solution
strikes me as fatalism.
> BTW, patent enforcement is generally through civil (not
> criminal) law already.
> You get sued for patent violations, not sent to jail.
Well, like I said, IANAL, so please excuse my legalistic overreaching. What
I meant to address was the notion of punitive damages for patent violation
(which to my recollection are allowed for knowingly infringing on a patent).
If we remove punitive damages, we remove the need for defending against such
charges (its the defense that costs; whether you successfully defend
yourself or not is secondary). It would also lessen the change that a patent
case won or lost would destroy the livelihood of the patentee or naive
> Jim Ancona
> firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
> Do You Yahoo!?
> NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting,
> just $8.95/month.