The way I read the letter from to Swende is that they’re putting Swende on notice that users of his code may end up infringing the (unnamed) patents, and under 35 USC 271 it is an infringement of the patent to induce others to infringe. Then they go on to warn that a GNU license to Swende’s code is not sufficient and his code should include a warning that there may be other IP rights (i.e., Inside Secure’s patents and others), then “request that you refrain” from publishing the code.
It seems to me that this is the mildest possible letter from Inside Secure on this topic. They’ve warned about inducement, and suggested a method to minimize his risk (to the extent he’s at risk at all, in Sweden – they haven’t identified patents in Sweden (or anywhere), and they haven’t described how/if there is an inducement provision in Sweden even if there is). Then conclude with “please don’t publish,” which is merely a request (which is, I think, the most they could really do anyway).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.