Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:09:07 +1200, greg wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>In message <00f15d41$0$206 17$c3e8da3@news .astraweb.com>, Steven
>D'Aprano wrote:
>>

(2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap
to read it with respect to patents and copyright.

>>
>That's not how patents work.

>
I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as I know,
whether something is deemed a derivative work is judged on the basis of
how similar it is to another work, not whether its author had knowledge
of the other work. As long as you express an idea in an original way, it
shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.

That is absolutely not the case with patents. It is *supposed* to be the
case with copyrights, but in practice the courts are interpreting
"derivative work" more and more broadly these days.

As for Microsoft Shared Source licences, there are two which are approved
by the FSF, but the others are a whole different story.

You will note that both the GNU project and the Mono project warn against
reading proprietary source code before contributing. Mono even goes so
far as to say that if you have read the source code to .NET, they cannot
accept your contributions:

If you have looked at Microsoft's implementation of .NET or
their shared source code, you will not be able to contribute
to Mono.
In general, be careful when you are implementing free software
and you have access to proprietary code. We need to make sure
that we are not using someone else's copyrighted code
accidentally.

http://www.mono-project.com/Contributing

--
Steven

[Grant Edwards]

Re: Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()

On 2008-10-03, greg <greg@cosc.cant erbury.ac.nzwro te:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>In message <00f15d41$0$206 17$c3e8da3@news .astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano
>wrote:
>>

(2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap to
read it with respect to patents and copyright.

>>
>That's not how patents work.

>
I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as
I know, whether something is deemed a derivative work is
judged on the basis of how similar it is to another work,
not whether its author had knowledge of the other work.
As long as you express an idea in an original way, it
shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.

IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing
punative damages. If you knowingly and intentionally infringe
a patent, I think you're libel for more damages than if you
accidentally re-invent something. At least that's what I was
told...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Thousands of days of
at civilians ... have produced
visi.com a ... feeling for the
aesthetic modules --

[J. Cliff Dyer]

Re: Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()


On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:15 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2008-10-03, greg <greg@cosc.cant erbury.ac.nzwro te:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

In message <00f15d41$0$206 17$c3e8da3@news .astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
(2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap to
read it with respect to patents and copyright.
>
That's not how patents work.

I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as
I know, whether something is deemed a derivative work is
judged on the basis of how similar it is to another work,
not whether its author had knowledge of the other work.
As long as you express an idea in an original way, it
shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.

>
IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing
punative damages. If you knowingly and intentionally infringe
a patent, I think you're libel for more damages than if you
accidentally re-invent something. At least that's what I was
told...
>

s/libel/liable/

When talking about legal matters, it's kind of an important distinction.

[Grant Edwards]

Re: Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()

On 2008-10-03, J. Cliff Dyer <jcd@sdf.lonest ar.orgwrote:

>
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:15 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:

>On 2008-10-03, greg <greg@cosc.cant erbury.ac.nzwro te:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>In message <00f15d41$0$206 17$c3e8da3@news .astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano
>wrote:
>>
(2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap to
read it with respect to patents and copyright.
>>
>That's not how patents work.
>
I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as
I know, whether something is deemed a derivative work is
judged on the basis of how similar it is to another work,
not whether its author had knowledge of the other work.
As long as you express an idea in an original way, it
shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.

>>
>IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing
>punative damages. If you knowingly and intentionally infringe
>a patent, I think you're libel for more damages than if you
>accidentally re-invent something. At least that's what I was
>told...
>>

>
s/libel/liable/

Of course.

When talking about legal matters, it's kind of an important
distinction.

Once again we see why a spell-checker is no substitue for
proof-reading.

A bit of googling finds that 35 USC 284 allows the court to
increase damages up to triple the compensatory value. Whether
or not the infringement was willful is often a primary
consideration in that decision.

http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Damage_Relief_for_Patent_Infringement.html

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/willful_patent_infringement.html

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2007DLTR0006.html

If the infringer never new the invention was patented, then the
infringement can't be willful.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm ANN LANDERS!!
at I can SHOPLIFT!!
visi.com

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: Python style: exceptions vs. sys.exit()

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:15:35 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2008-10-03, greg <greg@cosc.cant erbury.ac.nzwro te:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>In message <00f15d41$0$206 17$c3e8da3@news .astraweb.com>, Steven
>>D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
>(2) Even when the source is available, it is sometimes a legal trap
>to read it with respect to patents and copyright.
>>>
>>That's not how patents work.

>>
>I don't think that's how copyrights work either. As far as I know,
>whether something is deemed a derivative work is judged on the basis of
>how similar it is to another work, not whether its author had knowledge
>of the other work. As long as you express an idea in an original way,
>it shouldn't matter where you got the idea from.

>
IANAL, but IIRC it does matter when it comes to establishing punative
damages. If you knowingly and intentionally infringe a patent, I think
you're libel for more damages than if you accidentally re-invent
something. At least that's what I was told...

Yes. Under US Patent Law, if you intentionally infringe a patent you are
liable (not libel, which is like slander) to triple damages.
Unfortunately the meaning of "intentiona lly" is horribly broad: if you do
a patent search and find a patent which you don't think covers your
invention, but a court later decides that it does, that counts as
intentional infringement. But if you don't do a patent search at all, any
such infringement must be accidental.

Yes, this is incredibly broken. Economists and lawyers call it a
"perverse incentive":

"Finally, the provision for treble damages for willful infringement
actually creates a perverse incentive not to know about patents that
might be infringed. If a search is undertaken and knowledge of potential
infringement is obtained, then the willfulness provision will be
triggered and the infringer may be liable for treble damages. On the
other hand, without a search there can be no knowledge, and no willful
infringement."

http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/patents.html

Under Germany patent law, there is no difference in damages for
intentional, negligent or accidental infringement, hence no punitive
damages and no triple punishment for doing a patent search:

http://www.ficpi.org/library/lisbonForum/2-6_Hufnagel.ppt

--
Steven