3 ms·
Except he's entirely wrong if he's talking about the US. The only thing you don't need a license for is for purely speculative work, generally interpreted as n
by slapshot 19y ago
Except he's entirely wrong if he's talking about the US.
The only thing you don't need a license for is for purely speculative work, generally interpreted as nothing more than idle curiosity. Even research (such as trying to build a new invention out of an old one) is technically patent infringement unless you have a license.
Here's the actual law:
Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USCS Sects. 1 et seq.], whoever without
authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html
It says nothing about noncommercial use.
If you want confirmation, ask Duke University. It tried to argue that non-commercial research use should be protected in the case Madey v. Duke University. It lost. The Federal Circuit (the court that deals with patent appeals) held that research use is still use of the invention and still violates the law.
http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=b7930f1d-b945-4f95-b825-fa9ac70c16af http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.asp...
Here's another good summary of the Duke case:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied an "experimental use defense"
in a patent infringement lawsuit against Duke University, signaling that academic
researchers may be liable for use of patented equipment and processes even without
use for commercial purposes. The court declared that the noncommercial character
of the research in Madey v. Duke University was irrelevant. What matters is whether
the research "is in keeping with the alleged infringer's legitimate business,
regardless of commercial implications." In the case of a university, noncommercial
research is "legitimate business," subject to the patent laws.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1018?siteid=sci&ijkey=kOiAnw9uhtbsM&keytype=ref http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1018?...
- chaostheory 19y agosigh... I guess US law likes to kill innovation
- slapshot 19y agoIn real life, nobody ever sues over individual non-commercial use. First, the company is unlikely to ever know. Second, it's just not worth the hassle--suing costs tens of thousands of dollars and they'd recover far less. The law is on the books, but I wouldn't stress too much if you replicated a patented invention in your basement.
- notauser 19y agoPrior to P2P, which made individual copyright violation easy and fun, no one ever sued over individual non-commercial copyright violation either. Tape trading mostly went untouched; P2P is being fought. Making stuff in your basement no problem; Everyone sharing plans for replication on their own 3D printer not likely to go unnoticed.