On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:00:11 +0200, fsfe-ie-request@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Today's Topics:
- McCreevy indicates the next step (Glenn Strong)
IMO, the most interesting bit of the Silicon R report is the speech by Bernadette Cullinan, quote: "research and development was critical to the future success of the Irish economy" Underlining the importance of IPR for the software sector, she added: “We must continue investing in innovation and know that there is protection for that investment.”
"Agreed" to both remarks, but if you do R&D and don't protect your investment, if that is what you want, you only have yourself to blame. There is plenty of IPR protection around. It seems to me that what the Irish Software Association, and others, are after is guaranteed/remunerated protection under patents, not the sort of IPR protection you have to police yourself.
Bye, Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Barry Mahon writes:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:00:11 +0200, fsfe-ie-request@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Today's Topics:
- McCreevy indicates the next step (Glenn Strong)
IMO, the most interesting bit of the Silicon R report is the speech by Bernadette Cullinan, quote: "research and development was critical to the future success of the Irish economy" Underlining the importance of IPR for the software sector, she added: “We must continue investing in innovation and know that there is protection for that investment.”
"Agreed" to both remarks, but if you do R&D and don't protect your investment, if that is what you want, you only have yourself to blame. There is plenty of IPR protection around. It seems to me that what the Irish Software Association, and others, are after is guaranteed/remunerated protection under patents, not the sort of IPR protection you have to police yourself.
In the US, at least, you have to police patents, too, by prosecuting infringers in the courts -- or risk losing the patents to the public domain. I don't know if this applies in Ireland too, but it seems logical.
So the ISA really just wants patents. ;)
- --j.
I've heard of that for trademarks but not for patents. I'm saying it's not true but it seems to be contradicted by the Unisys with the GIF patent and Rambus with various standards-torpedoing patents like the Rambus one,
F
On 7/25/05, Justin Mason jm@jmason.org wrote:
In the US, at least, you have to police patents, too, by prosecuting infringers in the courts -- or risk losing the patents to the public domain. I don't know if this applies in Ireland too, but it seems logical.
So the ISA really just wants patents. ;)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFC5R9bMJF5cimLx9ARAtKlAKC3t9mMY2EyaYdYUTWprLmuW5PwdgCePje8 W6BNl7TNfL4UM35VpjUJElY= =fVxL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The term for this is "laches" --
Laches - the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." - Law.com dictionary
http://www.bohanlaw.com/patessf.html :
... the patent holder has an obligation to protect and defend the rights granted under patent law. Just as permitting the public to freely cross one's property may lead to the permanent establishment of a public right of way and the diminishment of one's property rights, so the knowing failure to enforce one's patent rights (one legal term for this is laches) against infringement by others may result in the forfeiture of some or all of the rights granted in a particular patent.
See also:
http://www.depo.com/torpedoing.htm http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/264/463.ht...
for some cases. It seems to be by no means clear-cut, but the doctrine is there. I would guess it may be viewed as a shaky thing to base an infringement case defence on.
- --j.
Fergal Daly writes:
I've heard of that for trademarks but not for patents. I'm saying it's not true but it seems to be contradicted by the Unisys with the GIF patent and Rambus with various standards-torpedoing patents like the Rambus one,
On 7/25/05, Justin Mason jm@jmason.org wrote:
In the US, at least, you have to police patents, too, by prosecuting infringers in the courts -- or risk losing the patents to the public domain. I don't know if this applies in Ireland too, but it seems logical.
So the ISA really just wants patents. ;)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFC5R9bMJF5cimLx9ARAtKlAKC3t9mMY2EyaYdYUTWprLmuW5PwdgCePje8 W6BNl7TNfL4UM35VpjUJElY> =fVxL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
Agreed, in particular because laches belongs to the law of equity and equitable remedies are discretionary, along with other maxims such as that both parties must come to the courts with clean hands, etc.
for some cases. It seems to be by no means clear-cut, but the
doctrine > is there. I would guess it may be viewed as a shaky thing to base an
infringement case defence on.
Teresa
Justin Mason wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The term for this is "laches" --
Laches - the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." - Law.com dictionary
http://www.bohanlaw.com/patessf.html :
... the patent holder has an obligation to protect and defend the rights granted under patent law. Just as permitting the public to freely cross one's property may lead to the permanent establishment of a public right of way and the diminishment of one's property rights, so the knowing failure to enforce one's patent rights (one legal term for this is laches) against infringement by others may result in the forfeiture of some or all of the rights granted in a particular patent.
See also:
http://www.depo.com/torpedoing.htm http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/264/463.ht...
for some cases. It seems to be by no means clear-cut, but the doctrine is there. I would guess it may be viewed as a shaky thing to base an infringement case defence on.
- --j.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:07:08 +0200, teresahackett@eircom.net wrote:
Agreed, in particular because laches belongs to the law of equity and equitable remedies are discretionary, along with other maxims such as that both parties must come to the courts with clean hands, etc.
I agree with all the comments.
I am not lawyer (that is probably obvious!), my point was that patents are seen as more watertight than (say) copyright and, because of the well established information services covering patents, the knowledge of 'ownership' is more easily created.
Bye, Barry