Yes, and what the defendant needs to prove is a negative. You can't logically
prove a
negative , so the current system is logically unfair to the defendant. When
you can not defend yourself because it is a logical impossibility to do so, then
something is very very wrong.
With the current legal system the other side
need only to show that 'it looks like that patent was infringed'. To a
non-technical jury that bar can be pretty darn low. If the prosecution were
instead forced to show the actual lines of code in the infringing product that
implement each of the claims found in a software patent then there would be a
lot fewer lawsuits.
If they can't point to it for the jury to see those
lines of code, and then let the defendant refute that code selection purpose,
then the lawsuit is completely prejudicial against the defendant. This should be
ruled unconstitutional.
--- DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong
problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|