From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <43666446-4389-480B-B478-99A967F7A57A@bitblocks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Bakul Shah Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:29:09 -0700 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2ab1b268-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:21 AM, mycroftiv@sphericalharmony.com wrote: > Anyway, I thought the world deserved to have a non-patent encumbered > version of Multi-pipes that could deliver very similar functionality, > but not conflict with IBM's Patented Invention. So, I used > /dev/timemachine to send some software back in time to 2009, before I > could see any trace of IBM Multi-pipes. I sent the Iosrv and Hubfs > software back to the sources server between 7/01/09 and 8/01/09 (you > can check the dump) so in this way I thought I could avoid any > potential issues with IBM's legal team. Patents are different from copyright. I don't think it matters whether you s= aw the IBM patent info or not when you developed your code. =46rom what I un= derstand, if you used the same technique you *may be* violating the patent e= ven if you independently came up with the idea. If it is same or close enoug= h, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. Whether softwar= e patents are evil or not and whether the current patent system is broken ar= e meta issues and don't really influence how specific patent issues are reso= lved.=20 Usual caveats apply.=