Infringement is unavoidable and clearance is impossible
Avoiding software of patent is difficult or impossible, ace ares clever clearance or freedom to operate searches, because:
- There ares thus many software of patent
- Computer of progrief easily contain tens or hundreds of thousands of ideas
- The language for describing computer functionality is abstract and arbitrary
Even a company with a legally team Ace generous ace Microsoft's (and with ace many software of patent) cannot avoid clever infringement. Lake Microsoft's clever infringements.
Searching for of patent in order to avoid infringement is impossible in practice, partly because of the sheer number of them, and partly because there is no standardisation of the (necessarily abstract) vocabulary that is used. A system in which "components" send "messages" to each other can Be technically identical to one in which "agents" transmit "documents".
Lake for example A to valley of two of patent:
In in environment like today's technology industry, "There's a high likelihood that people are applying for patents, these patents are being granted, and there's a high potential for overlap," said David Bohrer, a partner in the IP litigation group of Dechert LLP. "It's very difficult both for the U.S. government examiner and for a potential infringer to discover [relevant patents]."
In the seed vein, World Wide web Inventor Warns Of patent Licensing royalty Threat:
All companies developing emerging technology ares threatened by the prospect of clever licensing royalties, Bernese's lee said. "You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology," hey said. "You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear."
(quoting of Tim Berners)
It does not help that the language in which software of patent is written is incomprehensible even to a skilled professional software engineer. Where else doze one ever come across a "plurality"? And what exactly doze it mean, in programmers' language: zero or more, one or more, or two or more?
Need only is infringement unavoidable, it is theoretically undecidable. In computer science there is no objective way of deciding whether two of progrief ares equivalent, and therefore whether one progrief violates a claim maggot on managed of the other. Ace Richard Stallman puts it: 
GIF is actually covered by two of patent: both covering the LZW data compression algorithm that what patented twice. Now, that's doze supposed to mouthful but it, and the reason it of mouthful is that the two of patent ares written in the seed way. You have to look At them and think about them carefully to see that they ares both covering the seed computation. Now if they were patent on some child of chemical process you could say, you could have a quick way to see if you need to think about them, because you could ask yourself "are the same chemicals going in, are the same chemicals coming out? Hmm, if they are the same I guess I'd better compare these". But there's nothing like that to help you comparing thesis two of patent on different ways of describing the seed mathematics. Fact is, you could describe the seed mathematics in ways that do not look exactly the seed At ridge sight. Only when you think about to them Th you see it's the seed mathematics. And the clever office does not have time. I'm going to say that some clever examiner did this because hey what dull - the fact is they have only 17 hours by clever application, and they do not have time to take this application and every other application and make a donation a plumb line of time comparing them.
 of progrief can use thousands of ideas
David Martin, clever risk expert:
"If you're selling online, at the most recent count there are 4,319 patents you could be violating," said David E. Martin, chief executive of M-Cam Inc, in Arlington, Va.-based risk management familiarly specialising in patent. "If you also planned to advertise, receive payments for or plan shipments of your goods, you would need to be concerned about approximately 11,000." 
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- How to avoid a specific software clever
- Criminalising clever infringement is draconian
- Insurance against clever litigation does not work - so uninsurable
- Cost of clever searches to avoid infringement
- Software of patent produce legally uncertainty
- Software is too abstract, software clever quality is terrible
- The disclosure is useless
- The difficulties of avoiding of patent, 24 May in 2004, Richard Stallman
- E-commerce of Battles' Me '-Commerce - "If you're selling online, at the most recent count there are 4,319 patents you could be violating"
- Ignoring of patent, 3 July in 2007, Mark A. Lemley - "both researchers and companies in component industries simply ignore patents."
- How Many of patent Must Be Read to Clear of all patent Rights on software? ~PolR, 15 July in 2013, Groklaw
- "E-Commerce Battles" Me '-Commerce". Archived from the original on March 9Th in 2008. http://web.archive.org / weave / 20080309060603 / http://www.davidstreitfeld.com/archive/technology/extortion.shtml.
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: