Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents

+ - Tridgell recommends reading software patents-> 1

Submitted by H4x0r Jim Duggan
H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) writes "In a recent talk, Andrew Tridgell rejected the common fears about triple damages "If you’ve got one lot of damages for patent infringement, what would happen to the project? It’s dead. If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement, what happens to the project? It’s still dead." Tridge then explains the right way to read a patent and build a legal defense: "That first type of defence is really the one you want, it’s called: non-infringement. And that is: 'we don’t do that. The patent says X, we don’t do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it’s not relevant for us'. That’s the defence you want. [...] Next one, prior art: [...] Basically the argument is: somebody else did that before. It’s a very, very tricky argument to get right. Extremely tricky, and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community. And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent, you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things." — there are even some tips in the talk specifically for Slashdotters."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tridgell recommends reading software patents

Comments Filter:

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...