I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this may be a US-only thing.
Jon
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:40:17 -0400, krw Gave us:
There was no threat, you retarded f*ck. Note the contingency that the world be under "Old West Rules", dipshit. You are lucky we aren't. That isn't a threat, that is a fact. Perhaps one day you will know the difference, but I seriously doubt it.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:23:20 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan Gave us:
It can also be a personal honor and character thing in a civil society. If you claim to be part of a civil society, and claim to be honorable and of good character, you wouldn't do it.
Unless, of course, you are a characterless bastard. Like the KeithTard is.
One reality that is being ignored here is that there are no "Patent Police" and the word Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement. Reality is that if the patent holder (and only the patent holder) feels that you have infringed on his patent and he is willing to spend the money for the lawyers, then he can file a law suit against you to recover damages. Certainly in this case, the probability of this occurring is near enough to zero to be dismissed.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:52:21 GMT, "Jack" Gave us:
Is the fact that you are a top posting Usenet RETARD!
Bone up on the forums you interlope into, Chucko!
The reality should be that folks completely ignore twits like you until you DO BONE UP.
Being a top posting, TOFU Usenet retard is just plain stupid. Learn and obey, dork-o-flex!
If you have been on the planet long enough to be a "grandpa" you should understand conventions.
You know, like stopping at a red light.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:52:21 GMT, "Jack" Gave us:
BULLSHIT.
Illegal as in AGAINST patent LAW. That most certainly DOES apply to infringement of patent law. Get a clue, pops!
It does NOT require being a law that a LEO would pursue you for. All that is required is that it be against a law.
-- If by a "narrow view" you mean according to US law, then you're right. I have no idea how infringement is defined in Europe, but my personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more than a common thief.
Yes, that's what I meant.
In following up with your comments and references, I then found some suggestions about what I mentioned regarding the EU. I'm no expert on any of this, just vaguely interested.
And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.
If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.
Jon
--- Please bottom post.
While there are no "Patent Police", 35 U.S.C. 271:
clearly spells out what is permissible and what isn't with regard to infringement. What is allowed is legal and what isn't is illegal, and while there are no criminal penalties for breaking that law, civil action in the form of a lawsuit may be taken against the infringer in a Federal court, with possibly disastrous consequences resulting to the infringer.
While the probability of the OP being sued for infringement in this case may be vanishingly small, the point isn't whether he'll be "caught" or not, it's that if he chooses to copy the patent without the patent owner's permission he'll be infringing the patent, which he shouldn't, because it's theft of intellectual property and isn't the right thing to do.
-- JF
Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot due to the additional drag and to the time it will cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.
Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer, but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile) But even being crappy, I can look when I breath during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it. The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.
Ed
My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of theft-of-service laws.
If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
-- Agreed, and the reward for the inventor is in the form of a monopoly which generally prohibits the copying of the invention for the lifetime of the patent. I disagree slightly with your use of the word 'discovery' over 'invention', the implication being that the Venus de Milo was already in the block of marble just waiting to be let out. ;)
I don't have a precise enough mental model of my own. But I'd imagine that patenting vs copyright might play in this example you gave, in some fashion. I don't imagine that the 'good for social commons' concept underlying patents needs to capture every conceivable idea that anyone might come up with -- just something likely to capture some of the more important inventions.
Isn't that just life, though, in a world where countries claim any sovereign power? It seems already the case that US patents will be treated differently, elsewhere. And in particular, if I'm reading correctly, in the case of personal use already as a matter of reality we now live with. I think that's just the world that an inventor anywhere must accept or reject on their own. We may lose some inventions because some folks are riled by the treatment of patents outside their own legal environment, or inside their own, but at least the existing systems capture _some_ useful inventions that might be otherwise lost. And that is all anyone can reasonably hope for.
I don't personally grant much commons value for inventions that would otherwise be invented repeatedly and frequently and with variations of little importance in difference, as who cares? We can just wait a little longer. I've no problem with that and wouldn't want to exchange much value back for getting it a few months or a year earlier (except in VERY RARE hypothetical circumstances, which I wouldn't bend over backwards to get.)
Jon
Only for educational use (where the education is the patent itself).
Avoiding a license is "profiting from personal use".
They could nail them for patent infraction too. It's much easier to prosecute a criminal violation than a tort. The only thing to win in a tort would be a license fee, or perhaps the "value" of a box. ...hardly worth bothering with.
Labeling it so doesn't make it so. Try selling that "educational use only schematic" in the back of Popular Mechanics. ;-)
-- Keith
What about a small periscope?
R
In what country?
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
cite?
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
You _both_ need to check your facts (or specify in what country your opinion applies, if other than the US).
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of patents.
I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.
Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy you decide to follow ...
QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!
or ...
put up with top posting ...
some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page to read the response .. !!
snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net (ehsjr) wrote in :
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.