Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC, submitted by tyrione
General Development LLVM 2.8 has been released. The release notes describe this new, ehm, release in greater detail, so head on over and give it a read.
Thread beginning with comment 444644
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Software Patents ?
by galvanash on Sun 10th Oct 2010 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Software Patents ?"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Please stop this nonsense about end-users being sued. End-users can not be sued for patent infringements in products they are using, I can not be sued for patent infringements in my TV, the one who will be sued is the manufacturer of the TV.


Please don't give legal advice when you do not know what the hell you are talking about... End users CAN be (and have been, many times) sued for patent infringements in products they are using. You many feel that is unfair, illogical, stupid, or whatever - but I assure you that is simply the way it is.

If you buy something which does not specifically grant you indemnity by the manufacturer (which legally makes them the target in your stead), you are fair game.

Now, if you want to speak to whether or not you are "likely" to be sued, frankly that has almost nothing to do with your position in the supply chain and everything to do with how deep your pockets are and how likely you are to put up a fight...

And I do mean everything - frankly the target of a lawsuit is generally whoever the lawyers feel they can get to roll over easiest (or has enough money to make it worth while to endure a prolonged fight for a big payoff).

RIAA suits are a perfect example. Its not patent law, but that isn't the point. Do the targets of these lawsuits have money? Generally no - but the lawyers make up for it in volume (sue LOTS of people). And the payoff is strictly in settlements - if no one settled there would be absolutely no incentive for them to do this, and I mean no incentive. By the time a case gets to court they have already spent more money than they would ever likely see out of it... because the defendant is generally broke and can't pay anyway.

My point is this approach can be applied to patents as well. If the situation is just so, and a few lawyers get together and cook up a similar scheme where they think they can squeeze a few thousand people out of a few thousand dollars each in settlements, well if you think you can't be sued you are sorely mistaken...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Software Patents ?
by Soulbender on Sun 10th Oct 2010 04:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Software Patents ?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe you should take your own advice.

End users CAN be (and have been, many times) sued for patent infringements in products they are using.


Unless you can give an example that's bullshit.

If you buy something which does not specifically grant you indemnity by the manufacturer (which legally makes them the target in your stead), you are fair game.


Really? Why then does my mobile phone, for example, not give me any indemnification against being sued for patent infringement? When you buy a car do you get indemnification? When you buy a lighter?
These products are no different from software in terms of patent infringement.

RIAA suits are a perfect example. Its not patent law, but that isn't the point


Actually, that's exactly the point. The RIAA lawsuits are about copyright and it's an entirely different thing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that illegally redistributing (not necessarily downloading though) movies is against copyright law. On the other hand, knowing if a certain product could possibly infringe on some of the millions of patents that exists is an impossible task for a consumer. Consumers are simply not expected to have that kind of detailed and technical knowledge of every product they purchase. I can guarantee you that if a company brought to court a case against Joe Sixpack for infringing on some patent in a product he had purchased it would be thrown out right away unless you could prove that the defendant was aware of the infringement prior to purchase. Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that what you say over there?
If consumers where responsible to research in detail every product they purchased the whole capitalist system would collapse because not a single consumer would dare purchase anything in fear of being sued.

But hey, the American legal system might just be fucked up enough so that you should worry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Software Patents ?
by galvanash on Sun 10th Oct 2010 08:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Software Patents ?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Unless you can give an example that's bullshit.


I'm having trouble finding a reference, but there were a chain of cases filed by a company called Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation concerning bar code scanners. They did sue some of the scanner manufacturers, but they also sued businesses that used the scanners (namely some large retail outlets). In the capaicity that the retailers were sued, they were end users of the product (they used it, they didn't sell it). Why did they go after the retailers? Because they had more money...

The case ended up being thrown out (patent was unenforcable), but that is not the point. I didn't say it was easy to sue end-users (it is more difficult). It certainly would not go over well with the media, and judges don't like plantiffs that stir things up... I simply said that you can sue end users... US law specifically states that you can.

Really? Why then does my mobile phone, for example, not give me any indemnification against being sued for patent infringement? When you buy a car do you get indemnification? When you buy a lighter?
These products are no different from software in terms of patent infringement.


I never said software was different - it is exactly the same. You may or may not get indemnification when you buy something, you would have to carefully read your license/bill of sale/warranty to find out if you do. But hardware is no different from software - if you are not indemnified by the manufacturer than you are fair game for legal action in the US - that is just a fact.

Actually, that's exactly the point. The RIAA lawsuits are about copyright and it's an entirely different thing.


No it isn't. Please read this, and if you don't understand it read it again (this is taken directly from US law):

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Patent Laws

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.


That is very black and white, and stipulates quite clearly who action can be taken against for patent suits... It doesn't matter at all that you didn't know the thingimabob you bought infringed on a patent. No sure there are consumer protection laws that might trump this kind of thing in court - but that doesn't preclude an end user from being sued.

But hey, the American legal system might just be fucked up enough so that you should worry.


It is just that fucked up. That is what I am trying to tell you... I'm not claiming I like it - I'm just trying to make it clear that you are very very wrong about this.

Reply Parent Score: 2