On Oct 17, 2006, at 10:46 , Madison Kelly wrote:
> 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?
That would be a nice, but naïve, approach. It is likely that (without
admitting any guilt by any party) postgresql already steps on some
patents. In fact, any project you can think of likely steps on some
patents. There are patents on network communication: the "getting a
message from a server to client" sort of thing.
If you spent the next twenty years searching through patents and
creating patches for postgresql to circumvent the patents, not only
would you turn postgresql into a shriveled raisin of its current
self, you would be exposing postgresql to greater damages than if you
had never looked at the patents.
***Please- for the safety of everyone on these lists- do not mention
or link to any specific patents. This mailing list has a publicly-
accessible archive which could be used against me or you (at least in
the USA).***
Best regards,
M