[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: License Dilemma

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: License Dilemma
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:27:23 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.91 (gnu/linux)

"Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky" <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky" <> writes:
>>> John Hasler wrote:
>>>> David is telling you what patents do.  You are giving the conventional
>>>> rationalization for doing it.  Two different things.
>>> Huh, NO, its me who telling David and you what patents doing.
>>> And David just giving me unconventional
>>> rationalization for not doing it.
>> Uh, the right to bill people is an "unconventional rationalization
>> for not doing it"?  Are you sure you are not confusing me with
>> someone else?  If you are sure, please support your opinion of what
>> I am supposed to have been writing with actual quotes.
>> This is getting sillier by the minute.
> Don't mean to offense you personally or as part of group.
> If did so, please accept my apology.
> This wording is just rephrasing of what John post.
> But any way for "unconventional rationalization for
> not doing it":
>>" The whole point of patents
>> is to make innovation pay _off_, nothing else."
> and later
>> "Patent jurisdiction is
>> about recompensation.  The right a patent holder gains in the
>> patenting process is the time-limited right to bill others for
>> recognizable uses of his patent, nothing else.".
> While conventional point is: 
>>   To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
>>   limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
>>   respective writings and discoveries

Uh, where is the contradiction?  Here is what makes a patent tick:

    Infringement of Patents

    Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making,
    using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within
    the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the
    United States of any patented invention during the term of the
    patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief
    in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court
    for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement
    and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the
    infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may
    raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then
    decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is
    being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
    determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent
    and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the
    language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal

    Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of
    the federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there
    is an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The
    Supreme Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If
    the United States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has
    a remedy for damages in the United States Court of Federal
    Claims. The government may use any patented invention without
    permission of the patentee, but the patentee is entitled to obtain
    compensation for the use by or for the government. The Office has
    no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement of
    patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
    made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes
    any prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but
    it might infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention
    improved upon, if there is one.

Note that this is what a patent gives you: the right to stop others
from using the same idea without license.  The remedy is to have them
pay damages and have them stop.

When talking about the government, you don't even have the option to
stop them.  So even if your motivation is not money, and you patent a
new weapon (for example) so that nobody will be allowed to build it,
you can't stop the government from doing so.

The motivator is money.

That's how the laws are designed, that's what they center around.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]