What are the limits of making and using a patented thing? Can we make it for our own use? Can we give it away?
(This is several threads at the end of a discussion which has wandered off-topic; the earlier messages and even some of those in this conversation were not saved.)
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:37:30 GMT From: jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) Message-ID: <5greiq$ai7@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> References: <332FAC4B.11DC@sternlight.com> <EACHUS.97Mar18155240@spectre.mitre.org> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 37 In article <332FAC4B.11DC@sternlight.com>, David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: )Robert I. Eachus wrote: )> Of course this dance takes almost a year, and the final )> cross-licensing agreement weighs three pounds, but that is how it is )> done. The original patent holder CAN'T use his patent to deny )> improvements to the public--see the Constitution. ) )That's flat wrong. He has a monopoly according to the Constitution and )the Constitution says nothing about the licensing terms. Taking the )Constitution literally, one can refuse to license anyone, and make the )patented object only oneself. That's what a monopoly means. Not true. The purpose of a patent is to -disclose- new inventions, thus -allowing- people to find out how to make and use them, while still providing economic incentive to the inventor. One can indeed refuse to license anyone. But that does -not- mean that the inventor "make[s] the patented object only oneself". One -must- allow others to -make- and use the invention. Just not -sell- it. That may be what you meant. But it isn't what you said. )As for your example above, that's ypical of the way the Japanese patent )system works, not the US one. In Japan an improver can stick up the )original patent holder, and many big corporations make a career of doing )that to Americans--it was well documented in a PBS special a few years )ago. But in the US that's much more difficult to do. Yep. Happens all the time. And other countries don't even honor US patents *at all*. Or copyright. Mike -- ---- char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:41:34 GMT From: jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) Message-ID: <5greqe$amn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> References: <332FAB58.57DC@sternlight.com> <701611107wnr@rugeley.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 41 In article <332FAB58.57DC@sternlight.com>, David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: )William Unruh wrote: )> )> In <332EC32F.1901@sternlight.com> David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes: )> ... )> *>It is clear to me from the Microtimes interview if Phil is quoted )> *>accurately that he both "made" and massively "distributed" the patented )> *>invention. Both acts infringe. What is more, when he was asked in that )> *>interview if he infringed, his response was (paraphrasing), 'Well, I )> *>gave it away free.' as if that was a defense against infringing. It is )> *>not. )> )> I think that it does not matter in law what Phil thinks, or what RSADSI )> thinks. What matters is what the courts think. I am damn sure that if )> Phil had published his program in written form in a book, there would be )> no hint of infringement. ) )Wrong again, Unruh. You're confusing the ITAR discussion with the patent )discussion. If it can be used for crypto, as a machine readable )publication could, it's "making" and hence infringing. As another writer )pointed out, you are free to publish, but you also must take the )consequences of publication, including any infringement that results. Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not talking about devices which are themselves illegal). One may publish descriptions of patented devices or processes and either sell or give them away. IMO, mathematical algorithms are not and should not be patentable. But currently the courts don't understand why that is the case. At least some of them don't. Mike -- ---- char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:25:04 -0500 From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@smarts.com> Message-ID: <333156D0.1A4D@smarts.com> References: <5greqe$amn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 49 | Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's | use. One can make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not | talking about devices which are themselves illegal). This is dead wrong. Someone - I think Terry Ritter - posted the actual text of the US law on this recently. Neither "use" nor "sale" is necessary for infringement. There is debate (here, and apparently among attorneys) about the extent of a "research exemption". There is apparently no formal exemption, but in practice, "making" and even "using" *for the explicit and limited purpose of understanding how the patent works* seems to be accepted. | IMO, mathematical algorithms are not and should not be patentable. They indeed are not, and if any patents on mathematical algorithms have been issued (unlikely) a court would toss them out. If you continue to think the RSA patent is a patent on a mathematical algorithm, you're simply wrong. | But | currently the courts don't understand why that is the case. At least | some of them don't. Oh, I see. You're a world-class authority on patent law. Courts should come to you for approval, because you *know* and *understand* it so deeply. Welcome to the real world. Your (dead wrong) opinion on what's patentable *doesn't matter*. No one whose opinion on this *does* matter - no patent examiner, no judge who actually interprets the law, no lawyer who argues before one of those judges and who might influence a judge's understanding - cares what you think. Unless you want to go get your legal degree, work in the field for a number of years, and become a judge, your opinion on what the law says will *continue* not to matter. Even if you were to get yourself elected to Congress, your opinion would still be irrelevant: Congress can *change* the law as it applies to future cases, but has no power to influence how the law, as it is written today, is interpreted. Courts interpret the law, and only higher courts can declare their interpreta- tions incorrect. Only a later Supreme Court can declare that an earlier Supreme Court interpretation is incorrect; until over-ridden, the Supreme Court's interpretation *defines* what the law is. You may not like this way of doing things, but guess what - your likes and dislikes on this don't much matter either. -- Jerry
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:21:19 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <333A03D7.B65@sternlight.com> References: <5h9v8r$mvn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com> <5greqe$amn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 35 Mike McCarty wrote: > > In article <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com>, > David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: > )Mike McCarty wrote: > )> > )> Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can > )> make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not talking about > )> devices which are themselves illegal). > ) > )That is totally incorrect. Consult a patent attorney, please. Other > )experts have already posted here that this interpretation is wrong. You > )cannot "make" a patented object for your own use without a license > )without infringing. I don't know where you get this stuff. > ) > )David > > From my patent attorney when I got my first patent. He pretty well > spelled out what we could prevent, and what we could not. He made it > plain that we could not prevent people from making what we had and > experimenting and using it for their own purposes. > Either he wasn't speaking clearly or you weren't listening clearly. The relevant case law was posted here recently, and the exemption is very narrow indeed. It does NOT cover "using it for their own purposes", except when such purposes are clearly research or philosophical inquiry. Or you may be confusing "prevent" with 'effective', as in 'could you sue for significant damages and get them plus your legal fees from some kid with a chain bike'. Even then as I understand it, there's a category called "malicious infringement" which is criminal, not civil, and carries jail time. Perhaps a more expert reader can supply the details. David
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 27 Mar 1997 11:46:20 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hdmmc$1ev@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <333A03D7.B65@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 17 In article <333A03D7.B65@sternlight.com> david@sternlight.com writes: >Or you may be confusing "prevent" with 'effective', as in 'could you sue >for significant damages and get them plus your legal fees from some kid >with a chain bike'. Even then as I understand it, there's a category >called "malicious infringement" which is criminal, not civil, and >carries jail time. Perhaps a more expert reader can supply the details. 1. You wouldn't even get your legal fees from the kid unless you could show the judge that it was an "exceptional case". 35 USC 285. D 2. The patent statutes contain only very limited criminal provisions, such as one covering false marking (35 USC 292) and counterfeiting a patent (18 USC 497), unlike copyright law where infringement that is willful and for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" (17 USC 506(a)). Lee Hollaar
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:22:12 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <333A9EB8.808@sternlight.com> References: <5hd481$6ev$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <333A03D7.B65@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 34 William Unruh wrote: > > In <333A03D7.B65@sternlight.com> David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes: > > *>Either he wasn't speaking clearly or you weren't listening clearly. The > *>relevant case law was posted here recently, and the exemption is very > *>narrow indeed. It does NOT cover "using it for their own purposes", > *>except when such purposes are clearly research or philosophical inquiry. > > Thank you David. I believe that you posted a rather intemperate > article a while back in this thread castigating me for claiming that > there existed a research exemption to patent infringement. I assume that > this is an apology for your comments regarding my statements. It's no apology. There is no "research exemption" in the patent law. As experts here have confirmed, there's a very narrow case law provision which you failed to cite. In fact you were unable to find language supporting a "research exemption" in the patent law, and receded from your point. Thus I conclude you had in mind a generic "research exemption" which you failed to back up on being pressed. Most wise-guys here take "research exemption" to be generic, and one even went so far as to say that you could keep issuing betas of working productivity software and call it "research". That would clearly not come under the case law decision quoted here. Thus the use of an unqualified "research exemption" is inaccurate, misleading, and provides an opportunity for yet another fatuous discussion here, and I do not support the use of such language. Nor will I engage in YAUD* with you. David *Hint: D stands for diversion.
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 29 Mar 1997 19:13:11 GMT From: everettm@Ecd.East.Sun.COM (Mark Everett - High End Server Systems) Message-ID: <5hjpk7$18m@walters.East.Sun.COM> References: <5h9v8r$mvn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com> <5greqe$amn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 46 In article <5h9v8r$mvn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>, jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) writes: >In article <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com>, >David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: >)Mike McCarty wrote: >)> >)> Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can >)> make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not talking about >)> devices which are themselves illegal). >) >)That is totally incorrect. Consult a patent attorney, please. Other >)experts have already posted here that this interpretation is wrong. You >)cannot "make" a patented object for your own use without a license >)without infringing. I don't know where you get this stuff. >) >)David > >From my patent attorney when I got my first patent. He pretty well >spelled out what we could prevent, and what we could not. He made it >plain that we could not prevent people from making what we had and >experimenting and using it for their own purposes. I believe Mr. Sternlight is correct in this case. In a *practical* sense, so is your attorney. Although it isn't legal for someone to make a patented item for their own use without licensing it, in general it isn't practical to go looking for such violations. The reason that its important that you go looking for violations is to defend your patent. If you let just anyone use it, by your inaction you risk losing the patent. That isn't to say that you can't specifically give others a license without requiring a royalty payment, only that you have to be careful to *do* the licenses. In the case of an individual violating your patent for his/her own use, the courts generally are willing to overlook such instances when considering whether or not you've abandoned your patent and consider it an anomaly rather than the general state. I imagine -- without being an expert in patent law or even a lawyer of any sort -- that if a great number of people would start using your patent for individual use it would eventually reach a critical mass where such usage *would* affect your continued patent rights if you didn't do anything about it. -- -everettm DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself, not my employer.
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 29 Mar 1997 20:56:05 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hjvl5$rsg@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <5hjpk7$18m@walters.East.Sun.COM> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 22 In article <5hjpk7$18m@walters.East.Sun.COM> everettm@Ecd.East.Sun.COM (Mark Everett - High End Server Systems) writes: >The reason that its important that you go looking for violations is to >defend your patent. If you let just anyone use it, by your inaction you >risk losing the patent. Nope. You're thinking about trademark law, where you can lose a trademark by allowing others to misuse it. (Hence, the occasional Xerox ad saying that you can make copies, but only they can make a Xerox.) Your patent is yours for its full term, unless you don't pay the periodic maintenance fees or dedicate the patent to the public. It's still valid even if you don't enforce it against everybody or anybody. But there is a six-year statute of limitations for bringing an infringement action. And if you have established a pattern of allowing others to practice your patent invention without permission but with your knowledge, a judge may find laches (an equitable defense) prevents finding damages for the period of use before the suit. Similiarly, you don't lose your copyright through non-enforcement. Lee Hollaar
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 17:26:25 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <333486C0.2DFE@sternlight.com> References: <3332f14a.2717227@newshost.tempe.vlsi.com> <332E4038.28E1@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 36 Charles Marslett wrote: > Exactly my point -- the end ("the public good") justifies the means > (the creation of a monopoly or the public approval of a monopoly). Ends are ends and means are means. Each can be good, bad, mixed, or indifferent. But they are separate and good ends cannot justify bad means. We don't do bad stuff for good ends. The means is not justified by the ends but by itself, if justification comes into play at all. Even when one violates a commandment such as the sabbath (say) to save a life, it is not that it is justified. It is that it is permitted (according to Jewish Law). Justification is basically rationalization for an act which one knows one ought not to perform. It is an infantile cop out. I'll say that again, since it is likely to be misunderstood. It is infantile thinking--the kind of thinking a child engages in before he's had a moral education. > Unless you accept this principle, it becomes very hard to defend many > things in society (capital punishment, patents, military intervention, > even law enforcement itself...). That's the point. One doesn't "defend". Some things are permitted. And mixing capital punishment with patents is specious logic. > My point was that simplistic rules > like "the end never justifies the means" rarely reflect the way people > really feel or act. I assert that that is due to a defective moral education and the triumph of our animal over our human instincts.. David
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 23 Mar 1997 02:29:06 GMT From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Message-ID: <1997Mar2302.29.06.7044@koobera.math.uic.edu> References: <332FA704.27E@sternlight.com> <332DF22C.33E0@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 12 Followups out of sci.crypt. David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: > Your comment is an interpretation of your own and is not consistent with > the law, Nonsense. There is a firmly established experimental use exception in the case law. There was an article in High Tech L. J. in 1992 discussing the current boundaries of the doctrine. ---Dan Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 10:57:15 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <33357D0A.22B4@sternlight.com> References: <1997031822170674952@zetnet.co.uk> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 44 David Hopwood wrote: > > In message <5greiq$ai7@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> > jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) writes: > > > In article <332FAC4B.11DC@sternlight.com>, > > David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: > > )Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > )> Of course this dance takes almost a year, and the final > > )> cross-licensing agreement weighs three pounds, but that is how it is > > )> done. The original patent holder CAN'T use his patent to deny > > )> improvements to the public--see the Constitution. > > ) > > )That's flat wrong. He has a monopoly according to the Constitution and > > )the Constitution says nothing about the licensing terms. Taking the > > )Constitution literally, one can refuse to license anyone, and make the > > )patented object only oneself. That's what a monopoly means. > > > Not true. The purpose of a patent is to -disclose- new inventions, thus > > -allowing- people to find out how to make and use them, while still > > providing economic incentive to the inventor. > > While that was the original purpose of patents, current patent law (and > also its implementation) is IMHO very broken. The patent term has not > changed to take into account an increased rate of invention, or (in > some fields more than others) a decrease in the useful lifetime of ideas. > Arguably a 17 to 20 year monopoly for the original inventor now impedes > progress more than it encourages it. Patent law must apply to the bulk of cases, not just the rich inventor named DuPont Chemical or General Motors. Gaining financial backing, setting up manufacturing, getting publicity and gaining enough market penetration so that the inventor may subsequently enjoy the fruits of his monopoly take a long time in most of the cases the Constitutional provision was intended to protect (the small inventor). Often inventions are prescient or driving, and require changed infrastructure to make enough use of them to benefit the inventor. The current case is an excellent example. RSA is only now becoming a mass market product, and the patent has only about 2-3 years left to run. David
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: 24 Mar 1997 15:28:47 GMT From: aph@cygnus.co.uk (Andrew Haley) Message-ID: <5h66jf$lut$1@korai.cygnus.co.uk> References: <33357D0A.22B4@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 14 David Sternlight (david@sternlight.com) wrote: : The current case is an excellent example. RSA is only now becoming a : mass market product, and the patent has only about 2-3 years left to : run. Indeed that's true. However, I know of at least one case where a product was made without using RSA because of the difficulty and cost of licensing it, and I'd be surprised if there weren't others. I suspect we'll see a rapid expansion of the use of public-key systems when the patents run out. All of this is IMHO, of course. We'll just have to wait and see. Andrew.
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:25:01 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <3336D50C.49F3@sternlight.com> References: <5h66jf$lut$1@korai.cygnus.co.uk> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 47 Andrew Haley wrote: > > David Sternlight (david@sternlight.com) wrote: > : The current case is an excellent example. RSA is only now becoming a > : mass market product, and the patent has only about 2-3 years left to > : run. > > Indeed that's true. However, I know of at least one case where a > product was made without using RSA because of the difficulty and cost > of licensing it, and I'd be surprised if there weren't others. That's not an argument against the present length of patents, but one about where the patent-holder should set the license price. It doesn't even follow that the price was improperly set. One doesn't set a price so everyone can buy, but where enough buy to approximately maximize one's profits. To price so low that the vendor you cite would have licensed might have left a lot of money on the table from those vendors who DID license because the asking price was less than the value of the license TO THEM. The purpose of a government-sanctioned patent monopoly of any length is so that the holder can make MONOPOLY profits for a while. I've heard of people who (can you believe it?) cook their own food (Shock! Horror!). That doesn't mean McDonalds is overpriced. As for the other aspect, the additional innovation you cite resulted not so much from the patent as from the pricing of the license. And I suggest that the license terms are far from prohibitive. A tiny Belgian firm called Highware recently came out with a very convenient GUI-oriented PGP-compatible commercial product which works seamlessly from the menu bar with just about any mail, news, or productivity application. It carries an RSA license. It's called FileCrypt and is at hhtp://www.highware.com > I > suspect we'll see a rapid expansion of the use of public-key systems > when the patents run out. > > All of this is IMHO, of course. We'll just have to wait and see. > > Andrew. Patent policy may be a bit off topic for sci.crypt, so perhaps we should continue via e-mail. David
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 05:00:11 -0800 From: Peter williams <petkat@webtv.net> Message-ID: <5h8i8r$li$1@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net> References: <jthill-2403972017220001@jthill.slip.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 28 The profits made by RSADSI are remarakbly small, based on the fact that revenues were remarkably small.Most of the energy went indeed into forward investement strategies versus milking the early adopters. RSADSI often procured shares and options in startups in lieu of cash in many cases; Netscap being the most well-known case.. one should also remember that for a period, they could not get anyone to pay any money at all for a "worthless" invention (as it seemed in years 1-5) There are several large US compnaies who have recently licensed RSA who could have done do at much less cost only a couple of years ago, when it was offered to them, versus they went to RSA to seek licensing to do SSL and RSA value-added toolkits. RSA (as a patent) seems to have classical market price conditions. WIth competition, price/performance indexes relative to alternatives will change. From my experience however, the power is not in the patent; its in the ability of the math, and the convenient properties for large scale effecitive and loosley-coupled management of groups of key management agents (CAs), that will maintain RSA a more natural reason to maintin its market domnance. IN the years of competing with the alternative patent holder (cylink - holding Merkle-Helman, and/or controling DSA) the RSA technology won hands-down on its technical merits.
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 08:48:33 From: padgett@goat.orl.mmc.com-antispam (Padgett 0sirius) Message-ID: <padgett.1796.0008CF66@goat.orl.mmc.com-antispam> References: <5h8i8r$li$1@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 82 In article <5h8i8r$li$1@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net> Peter williams <petkat@webtv.net> writes: >The profits made by RSADSI are remarakbly small, based on the fact that >revenues were remarkably small.Most of the energy went indeed into >forward investement strategies versus milking the early adopters. RSADSI >often procured shares and options in startups in lieu of cash in many >cases; Netscap being the most well-known case.. Agree but part of the reason was that a demand had not been created. Given the timeframe of the invention (1975-1980) the logical market would have been in secure telephony however there was a missing but necessary ingredient - local processing power. A couple of years ago (this decade) I assembled the largest keyring anyone had seen to that time - over 6,000 entries and it took 3 1/2 *days* on a 386 to complete. Today with the advent of very high speed computers (Best Buy has a number sitting out for the peanut butter set to bang on with over 50 times the power of a VAX 11/780 - state of the art in "mass-market" computers in 1980). Also a good space heater. >one should also remember that for a period, they could not get anyone to >pay any money at all for a "worthless" invention (as it seemed in years >1-5) It is not enough to develop a mathematical curiosity, it is also incumbant on the inventor to create a market for it. Take the Selden patent and the automobile. The patent holders existed for one thing only - to milk the patent. They never produced any product (well, one demonstrator), just attemped to coerce real manufacturers into joining the A.L.A.M. OTOH take Armstrong and FM. Gave the invention *with product* to the US for WWII making our military transmissions virtually untappable for a significant period. His reward - the Yankee Network was put out of business after RCA pressured the FCC to move the FM band in 1945 (see "Empire of the Air"). >There are several large US compnaies who have recently licensed RSA who >could have done do at much less cost only a couple of years ago, when it >was offered to them, versus they went to RSA to seek licensing to do SSL >and RSA value-added toolkits. Until technology and uses caught up to asummetrical keying, there was not much use for it. Crypto use was confined to isolated groups and shared- secret symmetric keys worked just fine (and may again if anyone figures out a way to factor large near primes). Where it breaks down is in the anytime, anywhere, and with anyone including the sans culottes. Fact is that the major purpose for RSA may just turn out to be in separating the lemmings from their micro-cash. >RSA (as a patent) seems to have classical market price conditions. WIth >competition, price/performance indexes relative to alternatives will >change. True but the fact that PKP blocked all commercial use of asymmetric keying probably held up the publication of the Internet by several years. Only when the lock was broken by the split into RSA and Cylink did real products start to emerge, products strangly professional and polished in comparison to the typical "emerging technology". >From my experience however, the power is not in the patent; its in the >ability of the math, and the convenient properties for large scale >effecitive and loosley-coupled management of groups of key management >agents (CAs), that will maintain RSA a more natural reason to maintin >its market domnance. That is why so many are working on El Gamal mechanisms right ? >IN the years of competing with the alternative patent holder (cylink - >holding Merkle-Helman, and/or controling DSA) the RSA technology won >hands-down on its technical merits. Years ? Thought the PKP breakup was fairly recent (of course I keep coming unstuck in time). Final comment: Several people advised me to patent elements of my anti-viral software. I deliberately did not since my goal was to block the virus problem and encourage similar development, not to make money. Well I have suceeded in the last 8*). A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Cybernetic Psychophysicist http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/index.html to avoid antispam use mailto:padgett@gdi.net PGP 4.5 Public Key Available for evil to triunph, all that is necessary is for good (wo)men to do nothing
Subject: Re: Patent law (was Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:34:01 GMT From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Message-ID: <1997Mar27.073401.1@eisner> References: <E7nywA.F1u@cruzio.com> <5h8i8r$li$1@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net> Newsgroups: sci.crypt Lines: 18 In article <E7nywA.F1u@cruzio.com>, schlafly@bbs.cruzio.com writes: > In article <5h8i8r$li$1@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net>, Peter williams <petkat@webtv.net> writes: >> IN the years of competing with the alternative patent holder (cylink - >> holding Merkle-Helman, and/or controling DSA) the RSA technology won >> hands-down on its technical merits. > > Which years are you talking about? From early 1990 to late 1995, > those patents were pooled in the PKP partnership. That does not mean that customers for one set of patent rights were automatically customers for all. The fact that there was some degree of commonality in the licensing agent does not mean there was no marketing data available. If you go to reputable companies selling crypto products they will tell you what algorithms are used. Larry Kilgallen
Subject: Patent infringement (was: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: 26 Mar 1997 12:28:31 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hb4pf$cem@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <5h9v8r$mvn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com> <5greqe$amn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 80 In article <5h9v8r$mvn@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) writes: >In article <3331FCEF.66E3@sternlight.com>, >David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: >)Mike McCarty wrote: >)> >)> Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can >)> make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not talking about >)> devices which are themselves illegal). >) >)That is totally incorrect. Consult a patent attorney, please. Other >)experts have already posted here that this interpretation is wrong. You >)cannot "make" a patented object for your own use without a license >)without infringing. I don't know where you get this stuff. >) >)David > >From my patent attorney when I got my first patent. He pretty well >spelled out what we could prevent, and what we could not. He made it >plain that we could not prevent people from making what we had and >experimenting and using it for their own purposes. Let's see what the statute says -- 35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. (c) Whoever offers to sell, or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. * * * Infringement for "offers to sell" and "imports" was added, effective January 1, 1996, by the GATT implementation act. The original United States patent statute, the Patent Act of 1790 passed by the first Congress, provided similar rights to the patentee -- "the sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used, the said invention or discovery". So, clearly an individual making or using a patented invention is an infringer of the patent, except as limited by the narrow "experimental use" exception "for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement". See _Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical_, 733 F2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That said, there are a number of reasons why a patentee may not enforce his or her rights against an infringer: 1. Patent litigation places the patent at risk. A common defense is that the patent is invalid because of undiscovered prior art or "fraud on the patent office". 2. Damages are limited, generally based on reasonable royalties. For an individual infringer, it may be impossible to prove meaningful damages. In contrast, the copyright laws provide for statutory damages without the need to prove actual damage. 3. Attorney fees are available only in "exceptional cases". So what the patent attorney mentioned above was probably saying is that while it would be an infringement if an individual made or used the patented invention, it would be impractical to sue that individual for infringement. But it may be that the patentee is looking for somebody to make an example of, regardless of the cost of litigation ... Lee Hollaar Just published in AIPLA Quarterly Journal -- how Congress should change the patent laws to address software patents. See http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hollaar
Subject: Re: Patent infringement (was: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: 26 Mar 1997 21:03:21 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hc2up$i11@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <33392CB4.3E5E@worldnet.att.net> <5hb4pf$cem@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 59 In article <33392CB4.3E5E@worldnet.att.net> emDOTpeaDOTsea@worldnet.att.net writes: >Lee Hollaar wrote: : Let's see what the statute says -- : : 35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent : (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without : authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within : the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention : during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. : (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable : as an infringer. : (c) Whoever offers to sell, or sells within the United States or : imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, : combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a : patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the : same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of : such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for : substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. : * * * : : Infringement for "offers to sell" and "imports" was added, effective January : 1, 1996, by the GATT implementation act. : : The original United States patent statute, the Patent Act of 1790 passed by : the first Congress, provided similar rights to the patentee -- "the sole and : exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to : others to be used, the said invention or discovery". : : So, clearly an individual making or using a patented invention is an infringer : of the patent, except as limited by the narrow "experimental use" exception : "for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or : for mere amusement". See _Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical_, 733 F2d : 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). >Ahhh .... if we're gonna get legalistic, better consider rewording your >interpretation (above); nothing wrong with *using* a patented >invention. Did you mean " ... making or using *a copy of* a patented >invention ...CRYPHTML.HTM"? It's hard not to "get legalistic" when we are talking about what a law permits or requires. The reason it is not an infringement to use a patented invention if the invention was originally purchased from the patent owner or a licensee is the "patent exhaustion doctrine" which says that a patent owner gets the full measure of his or her patent rights when they sell the thing covered by the patent, so there is an implied license to use along with the sale. If you are a user of a patent invention not made by permission of the patent owner, then you are an infringer because the patent exhaustion doctrine does not apply. You don't talk about copies of a patented invention -- that's copyright language. You do talk about something that infringes the patent, or something that the patent claims "read on". If the patented invention is claimed as a process, anything that performs the process infringes the patent, whether it is a copy of the patentee's implementation or not. Lee Hollaar
Subject: Re: Patent infringement (was: "Experts slam PGP encryption") Date: 29 Mar 1997 18:43:28 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hjnsg$pou@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <5helc5$pfj$1@trojan.neta.com> <5hc2up$i11@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 21 In article <5helc5$pfj$1@trojan.neta.com> blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton) writes: >I thought all patents were essentially patents of >processes, and the description of a device was a necessary >(and sometimes sufficient) part of describing the process >the device performs. No, you can get a on "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" (35 USC 101). A manufacture is just some man-made thing that may not be a machine. And you don't have to indicate which of the four classes your invention falls into. Sometimes an invention will fall into two or more classes, and will be separately claimed in each class. For example, a software-based invention could be claimed as a process, a machine performing the process, or even a manufacture of a floppy disk containing the software. Besides utility patents, the United States grants patents on asexually reproduced plants and ornamental designs, but these are far less common. Lee Hollaar
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 23 Mar 1997 12:57:56 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5h39ck$f70@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <3334E7CB.1696@sternlight.com> <1997Mar2302.29.06.7044@koobera.math.uic.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 26 In article <3334E7CB.1696@sternlight.com> david@sternlight.com writes: >D. J. Bernstein wrote: >> David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote: >> > Your comment is an interpretation of your own and is not consistent with >> > the law, >> >> Nonsense. There is a firmly established experimental use exception in >> the case law. There was an article in High Tech L. J. in 1992 discussing >> the current boundaries of the doctrine. > >What are "the current boundaries of the doctrine"? And what might a more >specific pointer to the article be? The leading case on the experimental use defense is _Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical_, 733 F.2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Given that, any law librarian can direct you to the case.) In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity or for strictly philosophical inquiry." It's a pretty narrow defense. Lee Hollaar Professor of Computer Science Registered Patent Agent
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 23 Mar 1997 17:54:37 GMT From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Message-ID: <1997Mar2317.54.37.8375@koobera.math.uic.edu> References: <5h39ck$f70@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 12 Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: > In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the > exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity > or for strictly philosophical inquiry." False. There are two allowed forms of experimental use. The first is ``to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification.'' The second, which _Roche_ called ``truly narrow'' and defined as you said, is ``philosophical experimentation.'' ---Dan Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 10:40:23 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <33357917.1FE9@sternlight.com> References: <1997Mar2317.54.37.8375@koobera.math.uic.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 36 D. J. Bernstein wrote: > > Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the > > exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity > > or for strictly philosophical inquiry." > > False. Perhaps you could, with profit, learn the difference between "false" and "incomplete". What he said was true but incomplete. If you wish to nit-pick, you might argue that he used the word "only" which is literally false according to you, but the spirit of the discussion as well as what follows "only" mean the substantive clause is true, but there's more. We wouldn't want to mislead, would we? >There are two allowed forms of experimental use. The first is > ``to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification.'' The > second, which _Roche_ called ``truly narrow'' and defined as you said, > is ``philosophical experimentation.'' > In either case, it's clear that neither of your descriptions covers Phil Zimmermann's giving a copy of software practicing the patent, nor does it cover giving a copy away for wide distribution (which was what this part of the discussion was about). What is more, I'd argue that his programming of PGP itself went well beyond either definition, since he stated his intent in a letter to Jim Bidzos, and by applying for a license. His intent was clearly more than experimentation, and he's on record to that effect. Once he was on record that his intent was dissemination, on being denied a license I assert he was obligated to destroy, not distribute PGP. David
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 25 Mar 1997 01:21:43 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5h79b7$c6j@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <33357917.1FE9@sternlight.com> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 33 In article <33357917.1FE9@sternlight.com> david@sternlight.com writes: Somehow, the original Bernstein article did not make it to my machine, so I'll go with the sternlight response ... >D. J. Bernstein wrote: >> >> Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> > In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the >> > exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity >> > or for strictly philosophical inquiry." >> >> False. >>There are two allowed forms of experimental use. The first is >> ``to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification.'' The >> second, which _Roche_ called ``truly narrow'' and defined as you said, >> is ``philosophical experimentation.'' Here is the actual quote from _Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical_: [B]y 1861, the law was "well-settled that an experiment with a patented article for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement is not an infringement of the rights of the patentee." Peppenhausen v. Falke, 19 F. Cas. 1048, 1049 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861) So the major difference between what I said and what the Federal Circuit quoted with approval is that I talked about the "only uses" and they said "sole purpose". As to "to acertain the verity and exactness of the specification," a quick search of USPQ (from Volume 80 to present) doesn't find that quote. Could you please furnish a cite, particularly to a Federal Circuit case or one adopted by them? Lee
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 25 Mar 1997 03:30:53 GMT From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Message-ID: <1997Mar2503.30.53.14543@koobera.math.uic.edu> References: <5h79b7$c6j@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 21 Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: > So the major difference between what I said and what the Federal Circuit > quoted with approval is that I talked about the "only uses" and they > said "sole purpose". Wrong again. _Roche_ put a limit on the ``philosophical experimentation'' form of experimental use. You claimed that this was a limit on all forms of experimental use. > As to "to acertain the verity and exactness of the specification," a quick > search of USPQ (from Volume 80 to present) doesn't find that quote. _Sawin v. Guild_, 21 F. Cas. 554, 555 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813). There hasn't been any dispute on the topic since then. See, e.g., Eisenberg, Patents and the Progress of Science, 56 U. Chicago Law Review 1017, 1074 (1989). ---Dan Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 31 Mar 1997 02:59:45 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hn9b1$rj2@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <1997Mar2503.30.53.14543@koobera.math.uic.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 76 In article <1997Mar2503.30.53.14543@koobera.math.uic.edu> djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes: >Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> So the major difference between what I said and what the Federal Circuit >> quoted with approval is that I talked about the "only uses" and they >> said "sole purpose". > >Wrong again. > >_Roche_ put a limit on the ``philosophical experimentation'' form of >experimental use. > >You claimed that this was a limit on all forms of experimental use. > >> As to "to acertain the verity and exactness of the specification," a quick >> search of USPQ (from Volume 80 to present) doesn't find that quote. > >_Sawin v. Guild_, 21 F. Cas. 554, 555 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813). There hasn't >been any dispute on the topic since then. See, e.g., Eisenberg, Patents >and the Progress of Science, 56 U. Chicago Law Review 1017, 1074 (1989). Thanks for the cites. I'll look them up. But keep in mind that I wasn't writing a treatise on experimental use, but addressing the point that Mike McCarty made -- Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can make and use anything. and From my patent attorney when I got my first patent. He pretty well spelled out what we could prevent, and what we could not. He made it plain that we could not prevent people from making what we had and experimenting and using it for their own purposes. I pointed out the language of the patent statutes make making and using an infringement, but that there was a narrow exception for experimental use and quoted a key case on the matter (_Roche_). And nothing that has been said in this discussion has shown that there is a general exception to patent infringement for personal use, or even all experimental use. I just reread _Roche_, and there is nothing I see indicating that the court was limiting its views on experimental use to only "philosophical experimentation" rather than experimental use in general. But certainly making or using a patented invention to acertain the verity and exactness of the specification" could be regarded as "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity or for strictly philosophical inquiry", especially when not done for commercial purposes. As to experimental use for a commercial purpose, _Roche_ says: We cannot construe the experimental use rule so broadly as to allow a violation of the patent laws in the guise of "scientific inquiry," when that inquiry has definite, cognizable, and not insubstantial commercial purposes. So there is a reasonable argument that _Roche_, decided in 1984, limits experimental use in any form for commercial purposes, refining the 1813 decision you cited. There is nothing in _Roche_ to indicate the court was addressing just one of two types of experimental use defenses to infringement. There is nothing inconsistent, in my view, between _Roche_ and experimental use to determine whether a patented invention actually works, at least in a noncommercial setting. Certainly one reason to "satisfy idle curiosity or for strictly philosophical inquiry" would be seeing a patent and being surprised that the thing even works, then trying it just to see that it does. To the extent that other commentators may view the holding in _Roche_ as limited to a particular type of experimental use, they are welcome to their opinion, but their opinion doesn't make mine false or wrong. Lee Hollaar ps. If you really want to flog this some more, I suggest we do it by email since this has gone well beyond my pointing out that you can infringe a patent by personal use and probably beyond the interest of the people in this newsgroup.
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:03:38 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <33400A89.7DB7@sternlight.com> References: <5hn9b1$rj2@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 16 Lee Hollaar wrote: <more on what patent law does and does not provide, omitted.> > ps. If you really want to flog this some more, I suggest we do it by email > since this has gone well beyond my pointing out that you can infringe a > patent by personal use and probably beyond the interest of the people in > this newsgroup. Please don't. An intelligent, reasoned, calm discussion of some of the details of patent law relevant to the topic here, with the intention of gaining specific clarity and with citations and quotes, is just what this place needs instead of the unbuttoned attempts at proof by assertion by those repeating inaccurate "impressions". David
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:58:25 -0800 From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Message-ID: <333793B0.25AF@sternlight.com> References: <5h79b7$c6j@magus.cs.utah.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 40 Lee Hollaar wrote: > > In article <33357917.1FE9@sternlight.com> david@sternlight.com writes: > Somehow, the original Bernstein article did not make it to my machine, > so I'll go with the sternlight response ... > > >D. J. Bernstein wrote: > >> > >> Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> > In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the > >> > exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity > >> > or for strictly philosophical inquiry." > >> > >> False. > >>There are two allowed forms of experimental use. The first is > >> ``to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification.'' The > >> second, which _Roche_ called ``truly narrow'' and defined as you said, > >> is ``philosophical experimentation.'' > > Here is the actual quote from _Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical_: > [B]y 1861, the law was "well-settled that an experiment with a > patented article for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical > taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement is not an infringement > of the rights of the patentee." Peppenhausen v. Falke, 19 F. Cas. > 1048, 1049 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861) > > So the major difference between what I said and what the Federal Circuit > quoted with approval is that I talked about the "only uses" and they > said "sole purpose". > > As to "to acertain the verity and exactness of the specification," a quick > search of USPQ (from Volume 80 to present) doesn't find that quote. Could > you please furnish a cite, particularly to a Federal Circuit case or one > adopted by them? > Lee Thanks for the quote. I note with interest that the court said "an" experiment, and not "experiments". David
Subject: Re: "Experts slam PGP encryption" Date: 29 Mar 1997 22:34:34 GMT From: hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Message-ID: <5hk5dq$st3@magus.cs.utah.edu> References: <1997Mar2317.54.37.8375@koobera.math.uic.edu> Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.politics.org.nsa,talk.politics.crypto Lines: 33 In article <1997Mar2317.54.37.8375@koobera.math.uic.edu> djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes: >Lee Hollaar <hollaar@ursa0.cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> In that case, the court said that the only uses that fall within the >> exception are those made "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity >> or for strictly philosophical inquiry." > >False. There are two allowed forms of experimental use. The first is >``to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification.'' The >second, which _Roche_ called ``truly narrow'' and defined as you said, >is ``philosophical experimentation.'' I couldn't find a case with the quote "verity and exactness of the specification" when I did a search of USPQ and USPQ2d. Could you provide a cite to a specific case? Also, neither form for experimental use would provide any exception for somebody making or using the invention without permission of the patent owner for personal use. The first exception would no longer exist when you have first determined that the invention works. Also, in patent law there are two very distinct means for "experimental use." The one I have been discussing is when somebody other than the patent owner makes or uses the patented invention to determine something about it. It's a very narrow, court-made exception to patent infringement. The other "experimental use" is when the inventor makes the invention available to others to determine whether it actually works. The question is whether this starts the one-year public-use statutory bar. In one case, the paving of a public highway was found not to be a public use. In another case, the use of a corset by the inventor's girlfriend was a public use. Lee Hollaar
Terry Ritter, his current address, and his top page.
Last updated: 1999-01-19