Comment by obtu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by obtu | Hacker News Reader

Considering the proliferation of software patents, with very general claims like the XOR patent, all non-trivial software "infringes" anyway, no matter how many fees are paid.

Politically it matters in that it means software patent laws are broken and punish the creators of software.

But I don't think Debian should regard some software patents more highly than others and refuse to distribute some software because of those. That gives third parties leverage to make the distribution much less useful (for example by selectively crippling multimedia on desktops), without breaking the illusion that the law is really applied.

If these parties tried to mount actual legal challenges, they would have to spend money, raise awareness of the law, publicly behave in an anti-competitive manner, and risk losing some of their patents for, at most, an interdiction of some packages in some jurisdiction. I don't see why Debian should give this away.

This comment - and several others - seem to only be seeing half the picture in this new policy. Yes, it says they won't distribute software the know to infringe.

But the other aspects of the policy set up working practices and operating procedures to minimize visible, organizational knowledge of patents. It seems to me that they're actively trying to avoid knowing about patents so that they don't have to invoke the no-distribute clause and, if they do get sued, can hopefully keep away willful infringement claims. I think that's in general been their goal, but the new policy provides a clear and consistent mechanism for handling the issue.

Wouldn't a publicly stated policy of willful ignorance negate any defense of willful infringement?

If I make a point of not looking at speed limits signs, and pt a bumper sticker on my car saying "I don't read speed limits", would it be reasonable to expect the nice police officer to not write me a ticket?

I have worked for and with a lot of major technology corporations, and the official policy for employees has always been "willful ignorance": do not read patents, do not discuss patents, except with an attorney. So a lot of highly-paid patent attorneys must feel this is a valid approach.

That is one reason it's obvious the patent system is off the rails -- since part of the idea of patents is to encourage people to publish their inventions, presumably to be read by others.

Consider if knowingly breaking the speed limit resulted in a fine 3 times larger than if you unknowingly broke the speed limit. I agree there are criticisms from a wider perspective and it also negates one of the original intent of patents to share previously "secret" knowledge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com