From: phil osborn (philosborn@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 02 1999 - 00:25:05 MDT
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: Patents [was Re: Cryonics and Mike Darwin continued...]
>Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 00:28:06 -0400
>
>"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Which lead to my question.
> > >
> > > Does a patent prohibit all unlicensed use of the patented thingie, or
>just
> > > the unlicensed *commercial* use?
> >
> > My impression is that a patent in no way prevents any use. A patent
> > "holder" is allowed to dictate/enforce that it can not be used
> > (by anyone). So you have to go into court and prove that the
> > patent was infringed. The only possible exception to this that I'm
> > aware of is that you may be allowed to infringe on patents if it can be
> > demonstrated you are doing so in the process of developing something for
> > FDA approval (in the U.S.).
>
>You can build a patented device for personal use, but not for commercial
>gain.
I don't think that this is correct. There is a major historical example of
the misuse of patents that might be worth considering. In the 1920' - and
thereafter - RCA, Philco, Motorola, etc. entered into an enormous patent war
over electronic circuitry. Thousands of electrical engineers did nothing
but invent every concievable circuit design for no other purpose than to get
a patent to freeze out the competition.
Meanwhile, the REAL intellectual property rights were very poorly protected
by the patent system, as in the well-documented case of the inventor of
television, Philo T. Farnsworth (or have I forgotten his name - correct me
if I'm wrong) versus RCA's Sarnoff. Farnsworth didn't make a penny off his
invention and I believe that RCA has a Sarnoff Institute or some such thing,
honoring the thief.
I have always been a strong upholder of intellectual property - as in
software piracy, etc. - but now I'm starting to shift in my thinking. When
I see some of the BS software patents that have gone down - patents of
totally obvious ideas that the patent holders are counting on no one
opposing successfully until it's too late - I start to worry.
I would be very surprised, for example, if Microsoft were not deliberately
waging patent warfare against LINUX and any other possible competition,
acquiring patents on all kinds of key software and just sitting on them
until it's time to strike. Suddenly major LINUX software suppliers could
find themselves put out of business by rich legal teams, or having to pay
Microsoft royalties. What a dismal prospect!
Somebody say something cheerful, please....
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:23 MST