Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:37PM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> > On 24 July 2018 at 18:17, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as
> > > long as the author of the contribution didn't know about. There's no
> > > trebble damages in that case, and no tainting of others, plus,
> > > contributors and code reviewers/committers can't be expected to do
> > > patent searches for each contribution.
> >
> > Non-lawyer here, but "OK" is not a description I would apply to
> > implementing a patented algorithm. You might be thinking of copyright. Of
> > course it is true that people can't reasonably be expected to do patent
> > searches, as you describe, but the patent system as applied to software
> is
> > not well-known among knowledgeable people for being reasonable.
>
> Wrong. With patents the important thing is not to know about them when
> you implement -- if you come up with the same idea by accident (which,
> of course, is obviously entirely possible) then you are not subject to
> trebble damages. But if you knowingly copy the invention without a
> license then you are subject to trebble damages.
>
> A lot of patented ideas are fairly obvious. That always seems true
> after the fact, naturally, but many are fairly obvious even before
> knowing about them. It's clearly possible that you'll infringe by
> accident -- that's OK by comparison to infringing on purpose.
>
> Nico
> --
>

If you violate a patent, knowingly or otherwise, you are subject to
penalties (perhaps not treble but still penalties) and will have to remove
the offending code unless a deal is reached with the patent holder.

It is critical that Postgres require that all contributors do not enforce
patents against Postgres - full stop. That's the IP agreement that should
be in place.

-- Ben Scherrey