IANAL, but I crawl around in the patent world for my company. Don't rely on my advice or conclusions. Ask an attorney who specializes in these areas.
A purchase agreement or arrangement can spell out who holds who harmless for decisions made in the design(implementation) and processes used. You cannot control who sues who, but you can greatly reduce risk or funnel the risk to the responsible parties with the right relationship(written agreements) in place.
In your imaginary proposition, you are ideally responsible for the design(look, feel, function) and company X is responsible for processes(how the device is built). There are of course, patents that cover both propositions. Assuming the device you want built doesn't require any processes new to company X, you are probably the party responsible for any patents that may cover the resulting device.
If company X invents a new process to build your device (without consulting you) then they should be responsible for due diligence (making sure they are licensed to use the patented process or making sure that the process is not patented). However, if they do not perform due diligence and your device is built using a patented process, the patent holder can ask for an injunction to keep your device off market to try to pressure you and company X to pay royalties.
The code->pseudocode->spec->pseudocode->code process that you described is commonly known as an engineering or design firewall. Compaq used a similar process when they designed the BIOS for the first IBM compatible computers. This allows someone to achieve an exact or similar function without breaking copyright. As far as whether it breaks patents depends on the scope and interpretation of each applicable patent.
I don't know enough about the allowable patenting of algorithms versus patenting of implementations of algorithms to say whether an engineering firewall is sufficient to defend against a software patent claim.
A smart customer will make certain that they are indemnified and held harmless by company Y before buying company Y's software. Typically average consumers are not targets for patent infringement suits because they have shallow pockets and it would be a PITA to try to collect from so many different sources.
As far as an AI producing code: Only persons or corporate persons can be liable. As AIs are not recognized legally as persons, they cannot hold assets and cannot be held liable. And I really doubt that their actions would be considered an "Act of God." But in the case of infringement, someone or a corporate someone must be liable as infringement of a patent is not typically assigned causality to Acts of God or nature, etc.....
If you had a dog that bit your neighbor, they would not sue your dog, they would rightly sue you. I think the same would apply to AI output.
In any event, the safest thing to assume is that unless you have a legal instrument in place (agreement, law, regulation) that puts liability on someone else's shoulders, then it is YOUR rear exposed to possible suit over any part of the product.
In an ideal world, brokers are unnecessary because all transactions are above-board, honest, and accompanied by full disclosure. But we live in a world in which people try to take advantage of each other, and things go wrong even in innocent interactions due to unforeseen events and circumstances. By being regulated to perform their business in given ways, brokers help reduce the incidence of mistakes and intentional manipulation of markets. (To pick up the pieces, we have insurance, but that is for another discussion).
As for stock brokers, it could be argued that they supply no worth to society since they don't "make" anything. They don't. But without them, we would not have a maintained system for exchange of abstract representations of wealth from one form to another.
The key thing they do is readily allow us to trade one kind of abstract representation (money) for another (a stock or bond). Someone or "something" has to do it. Right now we still have organizations staffed with people who facilitate the exchanges. That is beginning to change as things become more and more computerized, but we will probably always have to have someone or something watching the transactions to guard the market against fraud and manipulation.
And the someones or somethings need to eat. And they are or can be programmed to be greedy.
I second the pleading to learn English, at the risk of adopting a French attitude about the French language when spoken by non-natives. (here's a hint: they can't stand non-native accents).
Religion says you don't have to fix your suffering... You're right, proper religion is about fixing other people's suffering. See James 1:27. (a paraphrasing for the lazy: Pure religion is to look after orphans and widows in their distress...)
... and neither are you or me from our attempts here to clarify any information whatsoever. A discordian would glory in the parent poster's confusion or deepen it by posting multiple misdirectional links or arguments.
Unfortunately, critics of "religion" are correct. We mostly practice a form of organization with exclusionary traditions, rather than "[aiding] widows and orphans in their distress." Thus they are unable to see any advantage or power in the "good news."
The truth is a sword and takes a lot of skill (love) to wield as a scalpel.
What we have now, though, is the mindset that state-allowed monopolies exist for the benefit of the owners or shareholders rather than the people they are supposed to serve.
We've struck a chord, it seems. Actually I would have preferred a measured response because the tone and tempo of your entry won't sustain the thread. In fact it is as unattractive as a flat-chested woman with a sharp trill in her voice.
It is up to the road owner to set up a toll booth if they want to extract money from those who drive by the billboard. Failure to set up a tollbooth (compounded by failure to even put up a sign that says "private road!... don't drive here unless you paid the toll!") makes the drivers not complicit in theft of service.
Sometimes it is an issue with the soil, especially black clay which expands and contracts during the day. Even slab foundations have trouble on this kind of soil. Basements would be costlier to build for durability.
It was a game balance and rules contradiction or rules ambiguity problem. As much as one might want to leave all decisions to the GM/DM, there were the inevitable rules lawyers that made gaming miserable by... well... lawyering...
Slashdot Mirror
0
\|/
>>
|
/ \
IANAL, but I crawl around in the patent world for my company. Don't rely on my advice or conclusions. Ask an attorney who specializes in these areas.
A purchase agreement or arrangement can spell out who holds who harmless for decisions made in the design(implementation) and processes used. You cannot control who sues who, but you can greatly reduce risk or funnel the risk to the responsible parties with the right relationship(written agreements) in place.
In your imaginary proposition, you are ideally responsible for the design(look, feel, function) and company X is responsible for processes(how the device is built). There are of course, patents that cover both propositions. Assuming the device you want built doesn't require any processes new to company X, you are probably the party responsible for any patents that may cover the resulting device.
If company X invents a new process to build your device (without consulting you) then they should be responsible for due diligence (making sure they are licensed to use the patented process or making sure that the process is not patented). However, if they do not perform due diligence and your device is built using a patented process, the patent holder can ask for an injunction to keep your device off market to try to pressure you and company X to pay royalties.
The code->pseudocode->spec->pseudocode->code process that you described is commonly known as an engineering or design firewall. Compaq used a similar process when they designed the BIOS for the first IBM compatible computers. This allows someone to achieve an exact or similar function without breaking copyright. As far as whether it breaks patents depends on the scope and interpretation of each applicable patent.
I don't know enough about the allowable patenting of algorithms versus patenting of implementations of algorithms to say whether an engineering firewall is sufficient to defend against a software patent claim.
A smart customer will make certain that they are indemnified and held harmless by company Y before buying company Y's software. Typically average consumers are not targets for patent infringement suits because they have shallow pockets and it would be a PITA to try to collect from so many different sources.
As far as an AI producing code: Only persons or corporate persons can be liable. As AIs are not recognized legally as persons, they cannot hold assets and cannot be held liable. And I really doubt that their actions would be considered an "Act of God." But in the case of infringement, someone or a corporate someone must be liable as infringement of a patent is not typically assigned causality to Acts of God or nature, etc.....
If you had a dog that bit your neighbor, they would not sue your dog, they would rightly sue you. I think the same would apply to AI output.
In any event, the safest thing to assume is that unless you have a legal instrument in place (agreement, law, regulation) that puts liability on someone else's shoulders, then it is YOUR rear exposed to possible suit over any part of the product.
In an ideal world, brokers are unnecessary because all transactions are above-board, honest, and accompanied by full disclosure. But we live in a world in which people try to take advantage of each other, and things go wrong even in innocent interactions due to unforeseen events and circumstances. By being regulated to perform their business in given ways, brokers help reduce the incidence of mistakes and intentional manipulation of markets. (To pick up the pieces, we have insurance, but that is for another discussion).
As for stock brokers, it could be argued that they supply no worth to society since they don't "make" anything. They don't. But without them, we would not have a maintained system for exchange of abstract representations of wealth from one form to another.
The key thing they do is readily allow us to trade one kind of abstract representation (money) for another (a stock or bond). Someone or "something" has to do it. Right now we still have organizations staffed with people who facilitate the exchanges. That is beginning to change as things become more and more computerized, but we will probably always have to have someone or something watching the transactions to guard the market against fraud and manipulation.
And the someones or somethings need to eat. And they are or can be programmed to be greedy.
Who will watch the watchmen?
I second the pleading to learn English, at the risk of adopting a French attitude about the French language when spoken by non-natives. (here's a hint: they can't stand non-native accents).
Hee hee hee .... pretty colors!
or mastercard versa
Yes, yes! I've got a fever ... and the only cure for it ... is more cowbell!
Unfortunately, critics of "religion" are correct. We mostly practice a form of organization with exclusionary traditions, rather than "[aiding] widows and orphans in their distress." Thus they are unable to see any advantage or power in the "good news."
The truth is a sword and takes a lot of skill (love) to wield as a scalpel.
What we have now, though, is the mindset that state-allowed monopolies exist for the benefit of the owners or shareholders rather than the people they are supposed to serve.
They're watching me too ... and I'm not even a customer ... yet ...
Demolition Man effect:
"...now all restaurants are Taco Bell."
State sanctioned monopoly corollary:
"...now all ISPs are Comcast."
I have proof! I stepped in ... and my shoe is covered in invisible, pink poop!
That's just sad because I think you just implied that your SO is ugly.
We've struck a chord, it seems. Actually I would have preferred a measured response because the tone and tempo of your entry won't sustain the thread. In fact it is as unattractive as a flat-chested woman with a sharp trill in her voice.
A good analogy is a billboard placed on a road.
... don't drive here unless you paid the toll!") makes the drivers not complicit in theft of service.
It is up to the road owner to set up a toll booth if they want to extract money from those who drive by the billboard. Failure to set up a tollbooth (compounded by failure to even put up a sign that says "private road!
...and too soon!
Sometimes it is an issue with the soil, especially black clay which expands and contracts during the day. Even slab foundations have trouble on this kind of soil. Basements would be costlier to build for durability.
Crawl, nay, slither back into your dark hole you abomination of anonymous-ness!
It was a game balance and rules contradiction or rules ambiguity problem. As much as one might want to leave all decisions to the GM/DM, there were the inevitable rules lawyers that made gaming miserable by ... well ... lawyering...
I think your "cussing" gene has gone from recessive to dominant.
So, why do you have discrete graphics?
No need to be anonymous to say that.
SO, no dogs in your WAGLESS society, eh?
Ha ha. You so funny.