I agree with Ann on this one, I think that it is difficult to claim
that a policy of not reading patents that you have good reason to
beleive may be infringed represents due dilligence.
But the position is far from unusual in US corporations. I know of
several global 500 brands where the policy is engineers do not
read patents.
Which kind of reduces the point of the exercise if patents are
meant to be a way of encouraging sharing of ideas. There needs
to be a root an branch reform of the patent system. Unfortunately
this is not currently within the scope of this group's charter.
"Daniel" == Daniel Quinlan <quinlan(_at_)pathname(_dot_)com> writes:
Daniel> I have yet to meet a lawyer *anywhere* who would disagree
Daniel> with the sentiment expressed in that post.
If you're refering to the sentiment that reading the patent may
increase your liability, then there appears to be one lawyer on this
list who disagrees.
In http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04982.html Anne
argues that _failing_ to read the patent may increase your liability.
-roy