AgentM wrote:
> Alvaro's advice is sound. If the patent holder can prove that a
> developer looked at a patent (for example, from an email in a mailing
> list archive) and the project proceeded with the implementation
> regardless, malice can been shown and "damages" can be substantially
> higher. You're screwed either way but your safest bet is to never look
> at patents.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer- I don't even like lawyers.
Nor am I a lawyer, but I still hold that hoping "ignorance" will be a
decent defense is very, very risky. In the end I am not a pgSQL
developer so it isn't in my hands either way.
Madi
I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent, you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you lots of money.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
