Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tridgell Recommends Reading Software Patents

Posted by timothy on from the you-may-read-the-article dept.

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "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."

2 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Here's a better idea by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    encouraging people to ignore it when they can get away with it

    You're modded insightful and yet you're post is completely identical to those of anonymous cowards who pirate music.

    If you believe in abolishing intellectual property so much grow some balls and stand up for yourself. Ghandi went to jail for his beliefs. By the sounds of it the most you're willing to do is anonymously preach to the choir.

  2. Re:Here's a better idea by Americano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If we as a society devoted as much effort to making food clothing, and shelter freely available (through mechanization) or close to it (through fair business dealings and efficiency) as we do on making hair sprout on bald heads, we'd likely have succeeded by now (except for the inevitable political squabbles from right wingers who would prefer to starve out half the planet rather than risk having even one poor person get "something for nothing").

    Breathtaking. In 3 short lines, you've managed to miss the point, quote directly from a 3rd grade "If I ruled the world," essay that dramatically oversimplifies complex issues, write a bumper sticker, and take a swipe-by-infantile-generalization at all those evil right wingers.

    Bravo, good sir. This must truly be your magnum opus.