My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




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.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:



My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.

---
Then you were under the wrong impression.
---

I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.

---
Nor should you, but if you copy a patented invention for the sole
purpose of using it but not having to pay the inventor for its use
then you're stealing his intellectual property.



--
JF

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:


My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.


---
Then you were under the wrong impression.
---


I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.


---
Nor should you, but if you copy a patented invention for the sole
purpose of using it but not having to pay the inventor for its use
then you're stealing his intellectual property.



Which reminds me, a few years ago i remember a case where a company
create a product that some one else had a patent on. The product was for
a very small and specific market. The person that held the patent for
this, heard about it after 2 years of it being used then the legal
battle started.
In the end. the patent holder didn't get anything other than a large
bill from his lawyer.
It appears that this person had patents on a lot of different things
with no actual material(devices, paper work, documentation ect) etc..
In other words, they simply created patents on idea's only.
It was there for decided in court that the patent was invalid,
and soon after, the company got a patent for them self's on this product.

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own,
I was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my
self but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own, I
was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my self
but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.

Bad advice. Write it up, get someone with understanding to read it and date
and sign the report.



--
..

--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

--

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:24:42 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
wrote:


"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own, I
was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my self
but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.

Bad advice. Write it up, get someone with understanding to read it and date
and sign the report.

---
Bad advice on top of bad advice, dumb****.

Read this:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/disdo.html



--
JF

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:04:55 -0500, Jamie
t Gave us:

It was there for decided in court that the patent was invalid,
and soon after, the company got a patent for them self's on this product.

Your spelling and grammar is so atrocious that you deserve no
further credence, if you had any to begin with.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:04:55 -0500, Jamie
t Gave us:


It was there for decided in court that the patent was invalid,
and soon after, the company got a patent for them self's on this product.


Your spelling and grammar is so atrocious that you deserve no
further credence, if you had any to begin with.
why don't you get that pecker out of your mouth, it doesn't belong to you!
oops, sorry, i forget. some one told me they thought you might be one of
those unfortunate souls that can't afford to have your lights on.
That would explain it.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:19:05 -0500, Jamie
t Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:04:55 -0500, Jamie
t Gave us:


It was there for decided in court that the patent was invalid,
and soon after, the company got a patent for them self's on this product.


Your spelling and grammar is so atrocious that you deserve no
further credence, if you had any to begin with.
why don't you get that pecker out of your mouth, it doesn't belong to you!
oops, sorry, i forget. some one told me they thought you might be one of
those unfortunate souls that can't afford to have your lights on.
That would explain it.


You could be a bit more retarded, little boy, just not in this life.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
Gave us:



My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




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.


Yeah, but you are a dishonorable, zero character thieving twit!

Goddamned gang boy mentality retards!

If you are copying, it has not a damned thing to do with
"innovation"

A. G. Bell did NOT invent the telephone. dip****. He stole it!

http://www.italianhistorical.org/MeucciStory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci