Saturday, May 29, 2010

Blake/Lilly rubber match and unintentional plagiarism

In a baseball-related post Over the line! Dodgers' Casey Blake says Ted Lilly was 'cheating', David Brown criticizes Casey Blake for labeling pitcher Ted Lilly a cheater for the manner of his delivery [ Of starting his windup from in front of the pitching rubber, Blake said "That's cheating. You've got to stay on the rubber." ]

Brown noted Blake can't call him a cheater because he lacked intent.

We have seen this type of argument in the plagiarism context, wherein we now have the nomenclature "unintentional plagiarism" or "inadvertent plagiarism." Of course, plagiarism is copying without attribution, whether intended or not. Delivering the ball in front of the rubber breaks the rule, intended or not. Practicing without permission what's in a patent claim is infringement, intended or not.

See also

SIU's unintentional plagiarism concept as contrived sophistry?

Mullin's "Prior Art" blog tries to smoke Ebert
[ Patent infringement is strict liability. It simply does not matter if the patent infringer was "aware" of the patent (or of Mullin's blog). If the accused infringer has a product or process that falls within the scope of a claim, it is over, case closed. The worst thing that can happen to an infringer is an injunction: the infringer is shut down, all happening without awareness of the patent. ]


Post a Comment

<< Home