From: wuthel!noisy@drums.reasoning.com
Date: Sat, 1 May 93 16:11:37 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Patent fallacies
Message-ID: <9305012121.AA07256@wuthel.uucp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



There seems to be some misunderstanding of how patent protection works.  Page
numbers in square brackets are references to _Patent_It_Yourself_ by David
Pressman (Nolo Press) 2nd edition.  Page numbers in angle brackets are to
``Intellectual Property'' by Miller & Davis (West) 2nd edition.


CONTRIBUTOR INFRINGEMENT

  ``If your claims don't read on the infringnid device, but the infringing
    device is a specially made compenent tha't nly useful in a machine covered
    by your patent, the ingringer may be liable under the doctrine of
   `Contributroy infringment' '' [page 15-9]
   
    ``If a person actively encourages another to make, user or sell the inventino
     without permission, the psers so inducing is liable for INDIRECT
     infringment.   CONTRIBUTORY infringment can be commmitted by know selling
     or supplying a non-stape item for which the only or predominant use is in
     connecitno with a patented invention.'' <130>

     ``Contributory infringement can occur only in connection with a SALE . . .
       Thus, a contributory infringer can be liable for infringment even though
	what he has sold is completey i the public domain and has no patent
	protection itself.'' <131>


HOME INFRINGEMENT

    ``While 'home infrignement' may be difficult to detect, nevertheless it is
      a form in infringment which is legally actionable and can subject the
      infringer to paying damages and/or an injunction prohibiting futher
      infringement '' [page 15-12]

      ''A patenet ahs the EXCLUSIVE right to MAKE, USE or SELL the invention.
	35 SUCA Par 154 <128> .... The  owner of a patent ... has  the right to
        exclude  all others from using ... it.


SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS OK


	``. . . a patent owner is not prejudiced by the fact that antoher
	  infringer has prodcuded the item without notice of the paten even
	  though a later second infrigner could legitimately claim that he
          copies an unmarked product.'' <129>

/w