Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I'm not a lawyer, but as a software author I am reasonably familiar with the workings of (UK) copyright law, through the practical process of chasing down infringers of the copyright on my software for the last 20-odd years, and having had innumerable conversations with my helpful solicitor about what does and doesn't constitute infringement. Practical experience is a good teacher.
|
Practical experience is a good way to come up with rubbish.
A brief example might illustrate. A few years ago I was involved in a lawsuit in the UK, on a patent as it happens. Both sides employed specialist legal help. The lawyers at our firm were mostly double doctorates, primarily Oxbridge, in Law and usually one of the sciences. Their chargeouts were eyewateringly expensive. After considering all our evidence and all the evidence obtained at discovery they came to us about 2 months before trial and said they weren't at all convinced we would win. Our board decided to go ahead anyway as a retreat could have severely affected the business in Europe. Two weeks before it went to trial the other side settled for $2million in damages and agreed to licence. They were employing equally qualified and expensive help, who had obviously told them that they couldn't win either.
So if Oxbridge qualified Doctors of Law can't determine what will happen at trial you'll forgive me if I take the pronouncements of an untrained, unqualified software author with all the seriousness and authority they deserve?