|
|
 | | From: | David Littlewood | | Subject: | Re: patent issues | | Date: | Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:38:18 +0000 |
|
|
 | In article , Andy Resnick
writes
>GTO wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>>similar situation is encountered in laser tweezers: two companies own
>>>all of the patents, preventing me from building and selling a laser
>>>tweezer package to another. However, I may build them and use them
>>>as I like. If your product is truly better than the competition,
>>>then enter
>>>
>>...
>>
>>"...as I like."? - In the US, if an apparatus is rebuild, reinvented,
>>copied or otherwise devised from a patented invention and used for the
>>purpose claimed in the patent, the owner of the patent can file suit.
>>This is a good regulation since otherwise companies and Universities
>>would just rebuild equipment for their own use without paying to the
>>inventors. Since 2004, a decision has been made to include rebuilding
>>equipment for R&D purposes. You may want to consult your Universities'
>>lawyers in this matter.
>>
>>Gregor
>>
>
>Interesting.... thanks for the tip. If true, this will really stifle
>research. My understanding is that I (me personally, not acting as a
>representative of a corporation) am only liable for damages if I
>attempt to make money by deliberately copying another's patented
>invention. Specifically for laser tweezers, there are open-literature
>papers describing detailed systems, and the patents I mention covers
>the *use* of the device, not the technology. So it's not clear if I
>build a device with plans obtained from (for example) Review of
>Scientific Instruments, use it to perform peer-reviewed research in my
>own lab, and publish any results obtained, that I am liable for
>anything. 300% of no profit is still zero dollars :)
>
>Unfortunately, the patent industry has been causing a lot of headaches
>for software and optics developers lately.
>
It is of course important to realise that patent law, like most branches
of law, varies from country to country, and perhaps from state to state
in federal systems.
In the UK, making a copy of an invented article, or using a patented
method, for private, non-commercial purposes is specifically protected
from a patent infringement action, as is making/using it for
experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
(Section 60(5)(a) and (b), The Patents Act 1977.)
This may not be quite as good as it sounds, since the "private,
non-commercial" must be *both*, and it is questionable if use in a
university could be "private". The experimental let-out is also dubious
here; you could make a scope to see how it worked, but not to use in
other research programs. However, there are some other interesting
let-outs - you would have to consult an IP lawyer if it really mattered
to you.
Of course, it could take a very long program of experimentation and
testing, on a variety of subjects, before one felt one fully understood
all there was to know about how it worked....
BTW, in the case you mention, it is highly unlikely that anyone here, in
practice, would be foolish enough to sue you. The remedies available
would be either an injunction to stop you making or using, and/or an
account of profits or compensation for lost sales. The average cost of
pursuing even a modest patent case is said to be about £50,000 (and that
figure is several years old. Most people could do the maths.
Regards,
David
--
David Littlewood
|
|
|
