Is that how patents work in general?
I always thought (and could be very wrong here) that if a patent exists for something but you've developed an alternative something in total isolation without seeing the patent then you would have free reign on how to design and develop your thing without violating the patent.
Ah yes, that's what I was thinking of -- thanks. Specifically a scene from an episode of Halt and Catch Fire (I won't describe it due to spoilers).
That's a real bummer for patents though and makes me wonder how something like Amazon's 1-click checkout was able to be patented. I wonder how "save billing details for future use" can be considered a novel idea.
They are a some of my favorites, and are fun to watch.
[0] https://dfarq.homeip.net/did-microsoft-steal-dos-from-cpm/
For a long time, software patenting law was famously lax. You could basically patent anything software-related if you knew the right legalese. The situation has apparently gotten better after a 2014 SCOTUS ruling, but in the '90s and '00s it was pretty dire.
https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608772/the-battle-against...
> Standards organizations, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to their patents and pending patent applications that cover a standard that the organization is developing. > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patent
Please not that this is less of a "You have to offer licenses or else" and more of a "Hey please do that."