a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (05/21/91)
In <1991May17.144807.29903@hellgate.utah.edu> hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes: >To know whether something infringes a patent, you have to read the claims >in the patent. The claims can be much broader than the invention that the >patent is to protect. This is particularly true for pioneering inventions. >When reading the claims, you see if each element of the invention recited >in the claim is present in your invention. If all elements are present, >then you infringe the patent. If just one element of the claim is not >present, then there is no infringement. If your invention contains things >not present in the patent claim, and the claim describes the invention as >"comprising" the elements, then you still infringe. If you have an element >that is similar to, but not exactly like, one in the claim, you may still >be infringing under the "doctrine of equivalence." My understanding is that, if the any element of the claim is "prior art", then that claim is invalid, (but you have to go to court to prove it). >The penalties for infringement can be stiff, and they are even worse for >intentional infringement (which would probably be the case here because of >the warning letter). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which >handles all patent infringement appeals, has made it almost impossible to >be an innocent infringer of a valid patent that you know exists. And it's >not just the person who distributes the program, but anybody who makes, uses, >or sells the patented invention within the United States. Another message in a related thread stated (quoting actual patent law) that only using or selling is an infringement -- making a patented invention is not infringement. >Don't depend on information from people on the net who might not understand >patent law. See a good patent attorney or patent agent. Agreed. -- a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (05/22/91)
In article <a_rubin.674776385@dn71> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com writes: > Another message in a related thread stated (quoting actual patent law) > that only using or selling is an infringement -- making a patented > invention is not infringement. This is not correct. If someone invents the bottomless soap dish and patents it, then anyone who makes, uses, or sells bottomless soap dishes is liable for infringement. On the other hand, if someone invents a new way of curing rubber and patents it, then there's no way to infringe the invention by making or selling it. You can make rubber, and you can make cured rubber, but how do you make the *process* of curing rubber? That doesn't make sense. The only way to infringe a method patent is to use the method. ---Dan
hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) (05/23/91)
In article <19060:May2120:58:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: In article <a_rubin.674776385@dn71> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com writes: > Another message in a related thread stated (quoting actual patent law) > that only using or selling is an infringement -- making a patented > invention is not infringement. This is not correct. If someone invents the bottomless soap dish and patents it, then anyone who makes, uses, or sells bottomless soap dishes is liable for infringement. I have seen many references to this "makes, uses, or sells" notion of the patent law, and it still has me somewhat confused. Is there no definition of what is meant by "making" and "using", or maybe exceptions stated in the law? The reason I am asking is this: I had always thought it is ok to "make and use" a patented invention for the purpose of exploring the patent and its applications. Thus, if my understanding is correct, we could all implement RSA, and we could have a friendly competition over who makes the most efficient implementation and so on, as long as we do not USE the system in the sense of storing and/or transmitting encrypted data. If we do the latter, we infringe. But by just exploring the possibilities, we do not. Have I got it wrong? If I do, I have another question. If a professor gives a lecture in which she fires up Maple and steps through the encryption/decryption parts of RSA as a demonstration, does she then infringe?? Where is the limit to what you can do? Just asking because I am confused - RSA isn't patented in my parts of the world, so this doesn't really concern me directly... - Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@imf.unit.no> Division of Mathematical Sciences The Norwegian Institute of Technology N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (05/23/91)
In article <HANCHE.91May22203428@hufsa.imf.unit.no> hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes: > I have seen many references to this "makes, uses, or sells" notion of > the patent law, and it still has me somewhat confused. Is there no > definition of what is meant by "making" and "using", or maybe > exceptions stated in the law? Courts don't bother defining the English language. They only clarify what they meant at the fine lines. Sure, there are exceptions everywhere, but they don't change what ``making'' means. > The reason I am asking is this: I had > always thought it is ok to "make and use" a patented invention for the > purpose of exploring the patent and its applications. The precise legal phrase is this: ``for the sole purpose of satisfying philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.'' Such use never infringes a patent. This wording has been repeated in several court cases and forms a very strong precedent by now. > Have I got it wrong? You've got it right. ---Dan
diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) (05/23/91)
In article <4547:May2223:16:3391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <HANCHE.91May22203428@hufsa.imf.unit.no> hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes: >> The reason I am asking is this: I had >> always thought it is ok to "make and use" a patented invention for the >> purpose of exploring the patent and its applications. > >The precise legal phrase is this: ``for the sole purpose of satisfying >philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.'' -------------------------------- Does this mean that if I make one for instruction without amusement, it is illegal? So if I make a copy of a patented graphical game (which does not amuse me) to see how it works, then it is illegal, but if I make a copy of a patented text adventure (which does amuse me) to see how it works, then it's legal? This is a serious question. The reason I ask it is, of course, that practical use might turn it on its head. If instruction by itself is sufficient (that is, if they really meant "for instruction OR amusement"), then amusement by itself is sufficient. However, in order to get a reliable answer, I had to ask the preceding question. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (05/23/91)
In article <4547:May2223:16:3391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >The precise legal phrase is this: ``for the sole purpose of satisfying >philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.'' >Such use never infringes a patent. I have no use whatsoever for cryptographic technology or software, I'm just a curious amateur. Anyone out there want to send me an implementation of the RSA cypher? ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/ PS: as far as I know, since I'm in the UK, this law doesn't apply to be anyway.
perl@dwrsun2.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (06/15/91)
In article <4547:May2223:16:3391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > The precise legal phrase is this: ``for the sole purpose of satisfying > philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.'' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What does "philosophical taste" mean? > philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.'' ^^^^^^^^^ Suppose the intended purpose of the invention *is* amusement. Can I make and use a patented video game? Come to think of it, what is the legal status of work-alike games posted to comp.sources, such as Tetris and PacMan? Robert Perlberg Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., New York murphy!dwrsun2!perl -- "I am not a language ... I am a free man!"