Re: A query planner that learns

On 10/17/06, Madison Kelly <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> wrote:
>
> AgentM wrote:
> > Alvaro's advice is sound. If the patent holder can prove that a
> > developer looked at a patent (for example, from an email in a mailing
> > list archive) and the project proceeded with the implementation
> > regardless, malice can been shown and "damages" can be substantially
> > higher. You're screwed either way but your safest bet is to never look
> > at patents.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer- I don't even like lawyers.
>
>
> Nor am I a lawyer, but I still hold that hoping "ignorance" will be a
> decent defense is very, very risky. In the end I am not a pgSQL
> developer so it isn't in my hands either way.
>
> Madi
>
>
>
I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to know
that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent, you only
have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did it anyway,
you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you lots of money.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.