Slashdot Mirror
Tridgell Recommends Reading Software Patents
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."
Anyway, the real defence is moving to a (software patent) free country.
I hear Somaiia has quite a lackadasical Software Patent system at the moment. As long as you're willing to harbour a few pirates (no inverted commas here!) you're pretty much ok to go!
:)
Enjoy your new haven
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Really? Are you willing to share your salary with random strangers on the street even though you performed work to earn the salary and they did not? Like it or not, there nothing wrong in keeping competitors that steal (leech) your ideas out of your market. They did nothing to deserve the profit. Patents are perfectly valid instruments to enforce that people who innovate make money instead of copycats.