🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19233:May2121:28:2291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> In article <1991May20.225855.382@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes:
[hmmm, attribution line missing here]
>>> As I recall, [...,] [c]ontributory infringement doesn't require the
>>> direct infringement to be in this country.
>> I don't think you can have this both ways.
> Oops, I got this backwards.  It's the contributory infringement that
> doesn't have to be in the country.  ``Unlike direct infringement,
> which must take place within the United States, contributory
> infringement does not require any activity by contributory infringer
> in this country, as long as direct infringement occurs here.''

Hmm.  Does this imply that the US presumes to tell foreign nationals in
their own countries that they are forbidden to do certain things?

(Well yes, I know they try to do this regularly.  It's just a bit hard
to believe it's written into the patent law.)

>> I don't think use outside the United States infringes a US patent
> This is correct.

Tough noogies if it does, seems to me - might as well not try to
pretend control you don't have!

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu