> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
> traditionally the IPR rules have applied to real people
Well, like you, I don't want to get into a rathole on this. Yes, nothing we
do can absolutely stop patents going unknown about (e.g. patents from
entities which don't participate), but I would prefer to be as expansive as
possible, and try and drag parent organizations in too, to the degree we can
(we have already, IIRC, had cases where an organization knew of a patent, but
a particular individual did not). IANAL, of course, but I assume since the
original attorney-generated text did include this concept, there was some
valid legal foundation for doing so.
> And somehow we also lost the point about "you know" or "you believe"
> along the way.
That was deliberate. To me, "believe" is a loophole big enough to drive a
truck through. Things either are, or are not, covered by a patent. (Yes, yes,
I know: legally speaking, that's not so until a finder of fact makes that
determination.) But leaving out the 'believe' means you can't say 'well, _I_
didn't think it applied' - leaving it out implies a duty to take in a wider
circle of assessment of whether it applies than simply one's personal guess.
Plus it also makes the text shorter.. :-)