5 ms·

At least in the US, I believe so long as you do not sell or transfer items, you can make them for your own use without licensing the patent. To win a law suit,

At least in the US, I believe so long as you do not sell or transfer items, you can make them for your own use without licensing the patent. To win a law suit, the company would have to "show harm". They can't. They lost exactly zero sales.

slimsag 7y ago
But in this case, it'd be for the hospital's use, so they would have lost sales technically and it'd be easy to show harm.
- harikb 7y ago
  May be having the inability to produce for the required (life-saving) demand should invalidate the “lost sales” argument. Anyways, wait for the deaths to mount and they will all come around in fear of retribution
nourse 7y ago
This is the opposite of true in that US patent law forbids even personal use but most European jurisdictions permit it.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Force majeure.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    ???
    - Recursing 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure I think "Necessity" is more applicable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) In italian: "Stato di necessità" https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_di_necessit%C3%A0 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_di_necessit%C3%A0 Rough translation: Cannot punish someone for something if he did it to save himself or others from a grave damage, due to a danger he did not cause voluntarily, and not avoidable in other ways, if the thing done is proportional to the danger (IANAL)
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Thanks.
      - LeoTinnitus 7y ago
        Plus lets be honest (not sure if civil law still has jury trials), NO jury, not even if they imported a single person from several random countries would convict them. Not a single one.
        Recursing 7y ago
        Jury trials in Italy are only for the gravest crimes (like some murders)
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    In the US: FM is between parties to a contract. FM clauses allocate the risk of unforeseen events to the parties as per the language in the contract. If FM is in play at all, it would probably protect the manufacturer by relieving it of its promise (if any) to provide the valves. Note, I have no idea how contract law works in Italy or the EU. However, in this case, there is probably an Italian or EU law that shields the hospital from liability. Especially if the hospital is part of a government health system. (The US has such laws)
- mhb 7y ago
  It doesn't forbid it. It enfringes on the patent and the holder can sue for damages.
FpUser 7y ago
I think you are wrong. The key I think is "for use". If you made patented item and are using it you can get sued. Of course nobody really gonna chase an individual but officially you can not.
- prutschman 7y ago
  Conversely, if you make it for the lulz, you should be fine. Unless the intended use is for the lulz. I so wish there to be jurisprudence on this...
- FpUser 7y ago
  I getting downvotes for reporting simple fact? That's the spirit. Never let the facts get in a way ... Here: "US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal." - https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/ https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 7y ago
False: 35 USC 271: Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  Hmmm.. OK, I wonder if that is a change in the law from some years ago?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    AFAIU not since 2010 at the most recent: (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 811; Pub. L. 98–417, title II, § 202, Sept. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 98–622, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3383; Pub. L. 100–418, title IX, § 9003, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1563; Pub. L. 100–670, title II, § 201(i), Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3988; Pub. L. 100–703, title II, § 201, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4676; Pub. L. 102–560, § 2(a)(1), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4230; Pub. L. 103–465, title V, § 533(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4988; Pub. L. 108–173, title XI, § 1101(d), Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 2457; Pub. L. 111–148, title VII, § 7002(c)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 815.)
pnw_hazor 7y ago
In the US a patent holder can absolutely exclude you from making or using their patented inventions. However, the US gov can infringe at will without any court orders or special laws. If a US gov agent (any low level CDC or health agency employee could do it) told the hospital to print valves, there is nothing the patent holder can do about it except get paid for the value of the valves sometime later.

slimsag 7y ago

But in this case, it'd be for the hospital's use, so they would have lost sales technically and it'd be easy to show harm.

harikb 7y ago
May be having the inability to produce for the required (life-saving) demand should invalidate the “lost sales” argument. Anyways, wait for the deaths to mount and they will all come around in fear of retribution

nourse 7y ago

This is the opposite of true in that US patent law forbids even personal use but most European jurisdictions permit it.

dillonmckay 7y ago
Force majeure.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  ???
  - Recursing 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure I think "Necessity" is more applicable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) In italian: "Stato di necessità" https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_di_necessit%C3%A0 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_di_necessit%C3%A0 Rough translation: Cannot punish someone for something if he did it to save himself or others from a grave damage, due to a danger he did not cause voluntarily, and not avoidable in other ways, if the thing done is proportional to the danger (IANAL)
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Thanks.
    - LeoTinnitus 7y ago
      Plus lets be honest (not sure if civil law still has jury trials), NO jury, not even if they imported a single person from several random countries would convict them. Not a single one.
      - Recursing 7y ago
        Jury trials in Italy are only for the gravest crimes (like some murders)
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  In the US: FM is between parties to a contract. FM clauses allocate the risk of unforeseen events to the parties as per the language in the contract. If FM is in play at all, it would probably protect the manufacturer by relieving it of its promise (if any) to provide the valves. Note, I have no idea how contract law works in Italy or the EU. However, in this case, there is probably an Italian or EU law that shields the hospital from liability. Especially if the hospital is part of a government health system. (The US has such laws)
mhb 7y ago
It doesn't forbid it. It enfringes on the patent and the holder can sue for damages.

FpUser 7y ago

I think you are wrong. The key I think is "for use". If you made patented item and are using it you can get sued. Of course nobody really gonna chase an individual but officially you can not.

prutschman 7y ago
Conversely, if you make it for the lulz, you should be fine. Unless the intended use is for the lulz. I so wish there to be jurisprudence on this...
FpUser 7y ago
I getting downvotes for reporting simple fact? That's the spirit. Never let the facts get in a way ... Here: "US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal." - https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/ https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 7y ago

False: 35 USC 271: Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271

dbcurtis 7y ago
Hmmm.. OK, I wonder if that is a change in the law from some years ago?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  AFAIU not since 2010 at the most recent: (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 811; Pub. L. 98–417, title II, § 202, Sept. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 98–622, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3383; Pub. L. 100–418, title IX, § 9003, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1563; Pub. L. 100–670, title II, § 201(i), Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3988; Pub. L. 100–703, title II, § 201, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4676; Pub. L. 102–560, § 2(a)(1), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4230; Pub. L. 103–465, title V, § 533(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4988; Pub. L. 108–173, title XI, § 1101(d), Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 2457; Pub. L. 111–148, title VII, § 7002(c)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 815.)

pnw_hazor 7y ago

In the US a patent holder can absolutely exclude you from making or using their patented inventions. However, the US gov can infringe at will without any court orders or special laws. If a US gov agent (any low level CDC or health agency employee could do it) told the hospital to print valves, there is nothing the patent holder can do about it except get paid for the value of the valves sometime later.