Re: Gates Patents Flipping a Light Switch

[phil hunt]

On 16 May 2004 13:38:22 GMT, Lee Hollaar <hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrncadkgl.uc.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org> zen19725@zen.co.uk 
>(phil hunt) writes:
>>On 15 May 2004 20:17:52 GMT, Lee Hollaar <hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <slrncacuj8.nde.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org> 
>>>zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:
>>>>So, IYO, criminalising open source software helps people who use 
>>>>open source software.
>>>
>>>At least in the United States, there are no criminal provisions that
>>>stem from patent infringement.
>>
>>If you infringe a patent, and a court tells you to stop doing it, 
>>and you keep on doing it, I expect sooner or later the authorities 
>>will arrest and imprison you.
>
>By that line of reasoning (?), open source licenses have already
>been "criminalised"

ITYM that *breaching* open source licenses has been criminalised.

> because if you breach them, are sued and are
>ordered to stop your breach, and don't stop, "sooner or later the
>authorities will arrest and imprison you."
>
>But even that would be "civil contempt," not "criminal contempt,"
>of the court, so even that stretch to justify your charge against
>patents isn't correct.

So if someone did breach a patent, what would happen to them?

>So, I guess you were right when you said "criminalising open source
>software helps people who use open source software," but probably
>not how you intended it.

The meaning you have in mind wouldv be better rendered as
"criminalising people who breach open source software licenses helps
people who use open source software,"

Which is probably true.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)