Brian Mathis wrote: > I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to > know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent, > you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did > it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you > lots of money. > > You may not like it, but that's the way it is. >
I got that part. :) If you _do_ end up in court, plausible deniability helps.
My position though is that it is better, in the long term, to be aware of the patents and take the time to work around them so that *no* damages need to be paid. Or, as might be that chance in this case, to get a written "okay" from the patent holder for the use of the methods protected by the patent in a given program.
Colour me funny, but wouldn't staying out of the courts in the first place not be the best option?