Lists Home |
Date Index |
Because with a documented system it is easier to establish the
timeframe. Given an ontological system, it is easier to organize
proofs of originality. Given an open and easily researched system,
it is easier to discover the original before reinventing it.
Openness and transparency are the key to legitimacy and no-fault.
We're spending a not insignificant amount of money to enable you
to prove you are who you say you are, and possibly to know before
you do that you will have to do that. Perhaps reusing some of that
technology to prove what you say is yours is is a decent return
on an investment in systems that should otherwise see little use.
From: Jim Ancona [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Which simply means that for the good of the community and
> protection against predatory acts:
> o Open source with clearly documented antecedents is
> the best practice because of transparency, auditability,
> and traceability.
> o Software source management tools should be used as
> evidence in patent cases to reduce the costs of litigation.
I'm curious as to why you think these would help defend a patent
lawsuit. IANAL, but my understanding is that independent reinvention is
NOT a defense to a patent action. If you implement a patented algorithm,
even inadvertently, you've infringed the patent.
Copyright of course is a different ballgame, and being able to prove
where your code came from should protect against copyright infringement