🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <970032@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes:
>[I can get much more public than that.  An example:]
>
>	The techniques presented by this article are covered by
>	U.S. Patent #123,456,789.  Contact the third author for
>	licensing details.
>Can you offer an ethically justifiable reason for avoiding such notices?

/ gnu.misc.discuss / waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) / Mar  5, 1991 /
> I can offer a very practical one. Typically the article is prepared at
> about the same time as the patent application.

This was in response to your claim that the Patent Office ISSUING a patent
was making it "about as public as you can get".

> THe article takes from 6 months to a year to be published,

You're lucky... you must write for very speedy journals.

You say "pat. pending" notices were abolished because they were effectively
extending the protection of the patent beyond the 17 years.  Fine, no
argument there.  But what does that have to do with the ethics of hiding
the fact that a patent has been applied for?  I want the notices to protect
the reader, not the author.  If the author wants to be protected, he/she
can wait until the patent is issued before publishing the paper.

So, I don't see how your statements, though all true, contradict in any way
my statement that it is unethical to publish a technique in a paper without
a warning (in that same paper) that a patent has been applied for or
obtained for that technique.

Jacob
--
Jacob Gore		Jacob@Gore.Com			boulder!gore!jacob