In article <p-2dnd2ROpZXYxrYnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@insightbb.com> rjack
<rjack@ixwebhosting.com> writes:
The application of U.S. Patent Law should properly be restricted to U.S.
territorial jurisdictions (importation) unless by International accord.
Since the provision in question, 35 USC 271(f) has been a part of
United States patent law since November 8, 1984, it is hard to see
what the rant below contributes to the discussion.
Birdbrain Bush announced the U.S.'s unilateral expansion of criminal
jurdiction to foreign sovereign's territories. This policy will one day
return to bite innocent U.S. citizens in the ass when other countries
reciprocate with similar "preemptive" policies.
3. If there were any doubt about the proper interpretation
of Section 271(f), the presumption against extraterritoriality
would resolve it. As this Court observed in Deepsouth,
“[o]ur patent system makes no claim to extraterritorial
effect,” and our laws “correspondingly reject the claims
of others to such control over our markets.” 406 U.S. at
531; accord Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow
Co., 235 U.S. 641, 650 (1915). That venerable principle follows
not only from the text of the Patent Act, which generally
grants rights only within the United States, see, e.g., 35
U.S.C. 154(a)(1), but also from considerations of comity, as
courts must “assume that legislators take account of the
legitimate sovereign interests of other nations when they
write American laws.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.
Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004). Foreign conduct
is generally the domain of foreign law, which may embody
different policy judgments.