🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May20.022740.24983@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes:
> I think I've missed the distinction between "implementing a patented
> method" and "making a patented invention".  Is there one, is this
> covered elsewhere?

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?

The answer is that you don't. You don't make methods and you don't sell
methods. You use methods. That's what a method patent covers. It doesn't
cover making an implementation, or selling an implementation; the
implementation is not the method.

(In contrast, a patent upon an apparatus will cover making the
apparatus, using the apparatus, and selling the apparatus.)

> My understanding is that the second quote is all there is.  If you
> implement a patented method you've infringed the patent.

No.

> 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.

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.

---Dan