Talk:Publishing information is made dangerous

Evidence that burden of proof is unjust (useful for i4i/Microsoft case)

I suppose a patent has not been awarded in the x264 event, but if the USPTO does not look at open source, does this not suggest it can be very easy (since there is so much open source and things they don't look at) to get bogus patents (see the comment here by a presumed USPTO employee http://opensource.com/law/10/11/software-too-abstract-be-patented#comment-2807 ) to be enforced many years later against innocent parties and lead to likely success of the effort because of very high costs required to manage the burden of proof then placed on the defendants?

If so, this supports that a great problem exists with patents by nature (particularly perhaps with so much software having been developed) since, unlike with copyright, you aren't making the statement that X is violated but rather that no such X exists (which can be arbitrarily difficult to prove even when such X exist).

And I think this is an argument useful for the i4i/Microsoft case (recently accepted by the SCOTUS): that all parties have too high of a burden of proof automatically by stepping into the court room as defendants no matter that the patent was awarded. [This problem is known and probably has been covered various times in briefs, but the x264 case could be tangible evidence.]

The recent Red Hat victory (at $3 million cost to Red Hat for the successful defense) is another useful example of how the huge burden on defendants leads to a lack of justice. Jose X 03:19, 2 December 2010 (EST)