__/ [ Robert Newson ] on Monday 15 May 2006 11:07 \__
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060514233436196
>
> ``Jacobsen[1] says he received a letter from KAM in March of 2005, offering
> to license for $19 per program installed on a computer, saying that JMRI
> was infringing claim 1 of the '329 patent. Jacobsen says he wrote a letter
> back asking exactly how he was infringing, and his answer was a letter in
> August, saying that he was infringing[2] claim 1 and that they were now
> investigating to see if any other patents were infringed by JMRI. Oh, and
> the price to license was now $29. The letter also demanded $203,000 for the
> 7,000 copies already distributed. In October came a bill with finance
> charges, so the total had risen to more than $206,000. He's gotten bills
> roughly every month since.''
>
> [1] he's a model train Open Source developer
> [2] Nice specificy - just like SCO...
Obscurity is often the best method to disguising a lie. Examples:
- Policemen asking a detained criminal if s/he knows what s/he
was arrested for /before/ any allegations are made. Innocence
can thus be assumed early on; guilt likewise.
- Computer user messes up with the already-fragile Registry. As
a consequence, Windows fails to boot. User phones support at
the callcentre, but tries to remove liability and accountability
off self by giving only partial information, until proven to have
broken the system.
Best wishes,
Roy
PS - to answer the question, "no, it doesn't". It's rhetorical. Many software
patents nowadays are 'infringed' unknowingly, undeliberately. That's why
they are so evil. Copyrights, trademarks, and products -- OK. IP -- my ass.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:15am up 17 days 18:12, 8 users, load average: 0.53, 0.74, 0.68
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
