So say I wanted to sell something...

I think so, possibly. If he has schematics and PCB board diagrams showing how to practice the patented art he could be in violation of the patent. If he were selling the boards, certainly.

Agreed. Evidence: Rich (the whatever).

some

If it's pateneted, it's already public.

Obvioulsy, and that's the whole point of a patent. However, because the idea is published (in the patent) doesn't mean others have a right to profit from the idea (again the whole point of the patent).

the

others

Consider software patents.

But the patent itself gives that kind of information (at least potentially).

My understanding is that it is legal to build a patented device in order to study how it works, but not in order to use it commercially (either to sell it or to use it to make money, e.g., as a piece of equipment in your business). That puts kits in an interesting position.

What's to consider?

At least enough for "one skilled in the art" to practice it, yes. So?

Exactly.

No, by profiting from the (patented) invention of others you're violating the patent; using it commercially (as you said above).

patent?

Also germane is the actual text of the law.

I guess what is at question is whether describing how a patented device works, based either on the patent's public declaration or on independent evaluation of the device, is "actively inducing infringement". It might be warning against infringement by describing the areas claimed by the patent, or it might be an investigation of the devices functions not covered by its patent. Wothout seeing the details of a specific case, I cannot say.

how

infringing

encouraging

I thought we were discussing "writing an article about how a patented [device] works". I don't see how it is possible to conduct any rational discussion of a software patent without discussing how it works.

--- I disagree. If the details of the functioning of an invention must be disclosed in a patent application, and if those details are subsequently made public by the government, as is required by law, certainly the government can't be accused of "actively inducing infringement" It follows, then, that if the details (which have already been made public) are merely being reiterated, no infringement has occurred in that case either.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

Interesting. You start with "I disagree", but your statement agrees with my thoughts on the matter.

Software patents are no different than hardware patents. What's your point? You can write about either, you just can't practice them for commercial gain (without permission, of course).

device

independent

my

I disagree with your perception of my thoughts.

I agree.

I don't know what that means.

--- From your:

"I guess what is at question is whether describing how a patented device works, based either on the patent's public declaration or on independent evaluation of the device, is "actively inducing infringement.""

My perception was that the only thought you'd expressed was that you guessed that there was some question as to whether infringement had taken place because of the government's divulging the workings of the invention or of some private entity having done the same thing after the original divulging.

Since, at the time, you didn't reveal what your thoughts were regarding whether divulging was infringing, (if that's what you're referring to) my remarks were directed to what you did post, your guess.

---

--- OK.

---

--- It means that if you explain to someone how an invention works, that's not infringing.

However, if someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, I need to know how this patented widget works because I want to build one for my own use." Then, IMO, if you did you'd be a contributory infringer.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

If I write an article "look at how great venorX's A/D converter is and how it works" with infromation from the patent -probably even point ing to the patent.

I'm using the invention to make money. But I'm not using the invention as such. Not the 'physical embodiment'.

Thomas