🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10670:May2020:25:2891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In the case of method patents, the invention *is* the method. So let's
>compare your quotes: ``implementing a patented method'' vs. ``making a
>patented method.'' How do you make a method?

I'm not up to debating this for long since my only qualification is
having read the law and been through the process once, but I'd point
out that all patents are patents on methods.  There is no distinction
in law between a patent on a method for doing something with hardware
or with software, the same law covers both.

And I'll bet PKP's lawyers (and even my dictionary) would not make as
much of the difference between the definitions of "implement" and
"make" as you do.

>As I recall, there are several decisions on this, all agreeing with you.
>Contributory infringement doesn't require the direct infringement to be
>in this country.

I don't think you can have this both ways.  Again, read the quoted passage:

>From Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 271:
>"(a)... WHOEVER without authority makes, USES or sells any patented invention,
                                          ^^^^
>within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes
 ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>the patent." [emphasis added]

I don't think use outside the United States infringes a US patent (at
least I don't remember seeing that, is there another passage which
deals with this?), so how one could one be guilty of "contributory
infringement" (whatever that is) if there was no infringement in the
first place?  It certainly might cause damage to the patent holder,
however, so if you've violated the law by making or selling the item
in question in the United States you should probably watch your butt.

I think this is the nub of the issue.  There is nothing in the law to
prevent you from making, using or selling any patented invention as
long as this doesn't cause material (read: monetary) damage to the
patent holder.  This is the whole point.  Society gets to learn about
the method, in return the inventor gets all the profits for a while.

Dennis Ferguson
University of Toronto