In article <rgjwvmf2kjiz$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In another bit of intellectual dishonesty, he says this:
>
> "So, if you want to know what the patents are, you're going to have to
> approach Microsoft with a good faith intention of having a licensing
> discussion. In other words, you need to pay it money."
Note the implication that Microsoft requires you to pay in order to have
a licensing discussion. Does he have any support for that remarkable
notion?
>
> Yet he quotes Gutierrez as this:
>
> "Microsoft publishes every patent that Microsoft gets issued"
Even if they didn't, the Patent Office does.
...
> Clearly, Furber knows that all issued patents are public knowledge and
> searchable, for free, in any of a number of databases, yet he
> disingenuously proclaims that the only way to know what MS's patents are is
> to pay them money.
>
> More intellectual dishonesty.
>
> The fact of the matter is, all of MS's issued patents are publicly
> searchable, and you're free to search anything to see if any Linux code is
> violating those patents.
>
> Nobody wants to do that, though. You know why? Because if you search the
> database and find anything, then you're *willfully* infringing, and that
> carries treble damages if someone sues you. The open source crowd would
Not necessarily. If you have a reasonable belief that you are not
infringing a valid patent, and that turns out to be wrong, the
infringement won't be willful. For example, if you believe that you
know of prior art that would invalidate the patent, then your belief
that you are not infringing a valid patent is probably sufficient to
save you from willfulness (especially if you get an attorney's opinion
that the prior art would invalidate the opinion).
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
