🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May19.184905.3760@hellgate.utah.edu> hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>>brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>>
>>>Sorry, folks, but this line of argument doesn't show that software or
>>>algorithm patents are self-contradictory. Implementing a patented method
>>>is okay; it's *using* the method that infringes the patent.
[...]
>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 think I've missed the distinction between "implementing a patented
method" and "making a patented invention".  Is there one, is this
covered elsewhere?

My understanding is that the second quote is all there is.  If you
implement a patented method you've infringed the patent.  It's just
that if no one uses the implementation the patent holder isn't likely
to be able to collect a lot of damages.

It makes for an interesting situation in the current case, however.
I`m not sure, but public key cryptography may not be patented in
Canada (I actually tried to find a patent covering this in the library
and failed, though the abstracts index is confused enough that I could
very well have missed it.  I've been unable to find patents I know exist
with that index).  Assuming this to be true, if I had grabbed a copy
of Mark Riordan's work it is possible I could have used it without danger
of incurring the wrath of Public Key Partners' lawyers at all.  And yet
since I would be using a made-in-USA public-key system, instead of
buying one from Public Key Partners, it wouldn't surprise me at all
if Mark Riordan could be held liable for damages arising from my use
of his system even though it might be otherwise perfectly legal for me
to do so.

What a mess.

Dennis Ferguson
University of Toronto