Frank Cox wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:00:36 +0000 > Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Apparently the concern historically has been explained that they will >> lay themselves open to patent attacks by showing in the source what they >> are actually doing. > > That sounds like a very odd explanation, if indeed that is the way that they > described it. "I don't want to tell you what I do for a living because I would > have to admit that I'm a burglar." > > It seems to me that statement like that could provide "probable cause" (or > whatever the correct term is) for a patent holder to get a court order to have > those guys checked out for patent violations. > I think the difference is that if they do not release the source, then you have everybody guessing if it is their patent that is infringed on, but if they do release the source, then it is easier to tell what patents. Otherwise it is to big of a gamble - remember, you will probably get stuck with all the lawyers fees if you guess wrong about witch patent(s). Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
