20 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
I know I said I was done here but I can't help myself -

Whether or not a patent should have been accepted, it exists. Whether or not it should be something, it is what it is. If the patent is something that wouldn't hold up in court (apparently), there are a TON of loopholes that lawyers get paid for finding.

Never, never underestimate the power of corporate greed/maliciousness/whatever you want to call it, to prevail over whats good and right an ethical and all that.

And for that matter, don't put yourself in the position to infringe upon ANY intellectual property right - trademark, copyright, or patent - without knowing full well what you're getting into - and in most cases you should avoid it altogether. This is why I have been repeatedly saying "talk to a lawyer if you do want to do this."

If that's too expensive for you, seeking a law professor at a local university is a good second best, and some groups have some good resources themselves, the Free Software Foundation in particular.

But let me say this again, the most important thing about this, written in gold ink with a pen made of wood from the true cross by the pope: don't put yourself in legal jeopardy without knowing the full extent of what would be happening and how you can defend yourself. Unlike what Rarva seems to be suggestion, ignorance of the law does not forgive you breaking it.

Maya/Rudha
20 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Never EVER inquire about patent when doing something, because if you know a patent exists then you are screwed since you 'knowingly infrige' it.

It makes no difference. As Rudha pointed out, ignorance is not a defence.
20 Aug, 2010, chrisd wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Whenever I consider something like this I ask myself what would happen if someone took legal action against me.

I generally conclude that it wouldn't really matter if I won in the end and decide to avoid the possibility altogether.
20 Aug, 2010, Kaz wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Kaz said:
Rudha said:
So I went and read through the Copyright Act of 1976 because my macefighting code was starting to all blur together.


Why? This is about patents. Patents and copyrights are two different beasts.


Fair Use is a doctrine that's been applied to both.

That said, this is getting a bit emotive and personal attack-y, so I'm out. My parting bit of advice is that if you think you have an issue with a patent or copyright or anything of that matter, talk to a lawyer.


Definitely good advice at the end. That said, I apologise if I came off as a personal attack. I was merely attempting to direct you away from an avenue of inquiry that would not have helped you to understand the situation. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are all about intellectual property, but work in wildly different ways.

KaVir said:
Rarva.Riendf said:
Never EVER inquire about patent when doing something, because if you know a patent exists then you are screwed since you 'knowingly infrige' it.

It makes no difference. As Rudha pointed out, ignorance is not a defence.


My understanding is that it's not exactly the case with patents – and also one of the reasons I try and avoid reading specifics about patents. One of the arguments that something is patentable is that it must have an "inventive step" or be "non-obvious" (depending on the geographic region in which the patent applies: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_s... .)

If many people independently fall upon similar solutions without having been aware of the patent, then it is more likely to fail this test.
20 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Kaz said:
If many people independently fall upon similar solutions without having been aware of the patent, then it is more likely to fail this test.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but in the context of a hobby mud I can't see it ever going that far. Contesting a patent is expensive. Better to work around it if at all possible.
20 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but in the context of a hobby mud I can't see it ever going that far. Contesting a patent is expensive. Better to work around it if at all possible.

Even in the context of a hobby mud you probably infringe about a million patent you never heard out , and did not even think anyone could patent it as it is obvious to everyone with a seemingly working brain (patent office excepted, their only part of brain that function being 'gimme money, and tell me where I put my stamp'

So if you are trying to work and look at patents first you will end up doing nothing, cause you do not have the money to license all of them. And if you did not pay AFTER you looked for them you are 'knowingly infriging' and that is fucking worse. In this case YES ignorance is a defense because it is the start of the proof it was obvious. If you look at the patent then say 'oh yeah this one is obvious', you are in big trouble.
20 Aug, 2010, chrisd wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
In this case YES ignorance is a defense because it is the start of the proof it was obvious. If you look at the patent then say 'oh yeah this one is obvious', you are in big trouble.


You have to be able to prove your ignorance.
20 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Even in the context of a hobby mud you probably infringe about a million patent you never heard out

It's possible you may infringe a patent, but you can at least minimise the risk. Remaining willfully ignorant will do you no favours, you're just opening yourself to an unnecessary world of hurt later on down the line.

Rarva.Riendf said:
And if you did not pay AFTER you looked for them you are 'knowingly infriging' and that is fucking worse. In this case YES ignorance is a defense because it is the start of the proof it was obvious.

No, ignorance is no defence, and even if it were it couldn't be proven anyway. That's why the patent holder will send you a cease-and-desist letter, or offer to sell you a licence - at that point you either pay up, or stop infringing.

If you're aware of the patent in advance, you can try to work around it. If you just bury your head in the sand, don't be surprised when patent holders start knocking at your door asking for their money.
20 Aug, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
It doesn't really matter if you believe in patent law, or if you think "commen sense" should absolve you of any obligations or not. The law is what it is. You can ignore it and play the odds that nobody will ever call you on it, or you can do your best to work within it when people point out places that you might be in violation.

Trying to whine about it and cry foul accomplishes nothing. Trying to point the finger at other infringers and claim you should be able to get away with because everyone else does also accomplishes nothing.

If you develop a system that is similar to the Final Fantasy system you referred to, you'll be fine. If you make it identical and anyone from Square-Enix decides to call you on it, you will have to decide if you want to change it, or pay a boatload of money to try and fight it in court. No amount of argument will change that.

Yes, the odds are pretty good that you'll get away with it. But then, people get hit by lightning every year. Soooo, do you feel lucky, punk? *grin*
20 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
No, ignorance is no defence, and even if it were it couldn't be proven anyway.

It could be proven you looked at a patent and trying to work around it, making you very suspiscious. (by analyzing your history research , contact to patent office etc).
The very fact there is no trace you looked at a patent is a good case for invalidating it because it is obvious.
But keep thinking whatever you want I do not care heh.
If you read slashdot regulary, the advice raise often, and from patent lawyers…
20 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
The very fact there is no trace you looked at a patent is a good case for invalidating it because it is obvious.

Hmm? It could also mean you wiped search history… or that it's not obvious and you did a lot of work to find it yourself… or any number of other things. No, you're much better off having a research log of some sort indicating how you came to such and such conclusion. But even so, no matter what you do here, you are on risky ground, and in the end of the day, the patent system favors whoever got it out the door first. You're not excused merely because you came up with it independently.

Quote
If you read slashdot regulary, the advice raise often, and from patent lawyers…

I find this statement to be somewhat amusing. :smile:



This conversation kind of reminds me about people who pirate music because they say the law against it is silly.
20 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
I too seek law advice at slashdot.
20 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
It could be proven you looked at a patent and trying to work around it, making you very suspiscious. (by analyzing your history research , contact to patent office etc).

Proving willful patent infringement is far less simple than you seem to think. But even accidental or innocent infringement can result in damages.

Bury your head in the sand if you wish, as long as it's your neck on the line, but please stop advising others to do the same. Or are you willing to cover their legal fees if they take your advise and face a lawsuit?
20 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree that it's not a great idea to essentially say people should infringe the patent because they're safe legally. On the other hand, somebody who takes an internet forum as a source of reliable legal advice is being kind of silly.
20 Aug, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
On the other hand, somebody who takes an internet forum as a source of reliable legal advice is being kind of silly.


But not slashdot; they give you the downlow. :thinking:
20 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Contesting a patent is something that takes a lot of work, research, and usually months if not years of going through the legal system, and even if you are successful in gaining a court order in your favour you better believe the people whom filed the patent will use every avenue of appeal available (which varies from country to country, I believe).

Kaz ~ it wasn't a comment directed towards you or indeed anyone in particular in the thread, more the tone and direction of the conversation. People were starting to attack each other instead of the arguments made and that tends to be the sign the conversation is going in bad directions.

Runter said:
I too seek law advice at slashdot.


I giggled.

Maya/Rudha
20 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
I think most of you are avoiding the fact that the majority of companies won't sue you unless they stand to lose more than legal fees cost. A MUD only generates good will and popularity when incorporating popular features from stand alone games.

A better question is not "is this legal". A better question is, "Do they mind?"

Squaresoft is the perfect example of a company that will say "no" if you make a formal inquiry, but won't have a problem with most small-scale projects. The CC-remake is an example of a possible threat to Squaresoft, and then Squaresoft only asked them not to release instead of jumping straight into suing. So… "legal' is good and great for those armchair paladin dudes out there, but I'd suggest taking a practical view.
20 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
If you want to take Ssol's gambit, feel free to break the law and hope that nobody catches you or that nobody minds.

Obviously, breaking the law has consequences only if (a) you get caught and (b) getting caught means getting in trouble.

Whether or not you care about that is up to you and you alone. If you don't mind putting a lot of work into something just to be asked to never distribute it, even without being sued for money or licensing fees, that's up to you.

As KaVir said, it would be nice to not encourage people to break the law because you feel that "pragmatically" they can get away with it.
20 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
think most of you are avoiding the fact that the majority of companies won't sue you unless they stand to lose more than legal fees cost.


Are you kidding? That's either naivete or ignorance. Some "game companies" or "software companies" seem to exist only for the purpose of making money through patent litigation. But don't take my word for it.

And it's really, really questionable to advise someone to break the law. Let's not do that, aye?

Maya/Rudha
20 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
I think most of you are avoiding the fact that the majority of companies won't sue you unless they stand to lose more than legal fees cost.

A generic cease-and-desist email doesn't cost anything.

Ssolvarain said:
A MUD only generates good will and popularity when incorporating popular features from stand alone games.

Emphasis mine. If your "popularity" is generated by offering a patented feature, the patent owner may decide they deserve something for their invention. Perhaps they'll even feel you're drawing customers away from their product.

Ssolvarain said:
A better question is not "is this legal". A better question is, "Do they mind?"

This is the Legal Issues board, and the OP explicitly asked a legal question.
40.0/157