Ned Simmons wrote:

A layman's reading of the code would seem to support that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be
liable as an infringer.


I think that part covers it.

Wes

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:48:41 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:

A layman's reading of the code would seem to support that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be
liable as an infringer.


I think that part covers it.

Wes


I would still have thought that the primary offender in both the alleged
patent infringement and the alleged copyright infringements would be the
person that commissioned the work. Otherwise there'd be a case against the
machine operators.

If the person that commissioned the work were an agent of the patent holder or
copyright holder, then the work would have been authorised by definition...


Mark Rand

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:59:45 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:48:41 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:

A layman's reading of the code would seem to support that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be
liable as an infringer.


I think that part covers it.

Wes


I would still have thought that the primary offender in both the alleged
patent infringement and the alleged copyright infringements would be the
person that commissioned the work. Otherwise there'd be a case against the
machine operators.

If the person that commissioned the work were an agent of the patent holder or
copyright holder, then the work would have been authorised by definition...

Ab-freaking-surd. If they can go back to a machine shop for making
a few bushings or metal components with no idea of what they are to be
used for...

Then we should have to provide an affidavit every time we order ball
bearings, gearmotors, cams and actuators, or any other part that could
conceivably be used to build an infringing copy of a patented item.

Imagine needing to send in an original freshly signed and notarized
affidavit of what you will do with every component on every line of
every McMaster or Grainger order, track every inch of shafting and
every electric motor, even conduit fittings and plumbing fittings and
pop rivets...

That language is loose enough that IMHO if they tried suing over
making a few mechanical bits that you had no idea what they were being
used for, and you had sufficient "intestinal fortitude" and legal
backing to fight the charge all the way to the Supreme Court, you
could blow it out of the water. You would have to stare the patent
holder down at every level along the way without flinching even once.

If they made a practice of stinging and suing to bankruptcy every
machine shop small and large in the country, all they would do is
force them all to shut down and send all the work overseas. Or you
would have to require the same notarized statements and piles of
paperwork out of every customer, with huge costs to print file and
track it all to Mil-Spec standards, and no assurance that it would
protect you when the inevitable claim comes in.

And then there's the Junk Patent angle, where someone sneaks through
a patent on fire, the inclined plane or the wheel (or equiv. glaringly
obvious thing) and starts looking for infringers...

"Have a Lathe, Own a Bolt and Nut, Go to Jail." Big Brother,
anyone?

-- Bruce --

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:48:41 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:

A layman's reading of the code would seem to support that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be
liable as an infringer.


I think that part covers it.

Wes

This bit of code is limited by the condition of "outside of the United
States". If that condition is not met, then this bit of code is
immaterial.

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:59:45 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:48:41 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:

A layman's reading of the code would seem to support that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or
from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe
the
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be
liable as an infringer.


I think that part covers it.

Wes


I would still have thought that the primary offender in both the alleged
patent infringement and the alleged copyright infringements would be the
person that commissioned the work. Otherwise there'd be a case against the
machine operators.

If the person that commissioned the work were an agent of the patent
holder or
copyright holder, then the work would have been authorised by
definition...

Ab-freaking-surd. If they can go back to a machine shop for making
a few bushings or metal components with no idea of what they are to be
used for...

Then we should have to provide an affidavit every time we order ball
bearings, gearmotors, cams and actuators, or any other part that could
conceivably be used to build an infringing copy of a patented item.

Imagine needing to send in an original freshly signed and notarized
affidavit of what you will do with every component on every line of
every McMaster or Grainger order, track every inch of shafting and
every electric motor, even conduit fittings and plumbing fittings and
pop rivets...

That language is loose enough that IMHO if they tried suing over
making a few mechanical bits that you had no idea what they were being
used for, and you had sufficient "intestinal fortitude" and legal
backing to fight the charge all the way to the Supreme Court, you
could blow it out of the water. You would have to stare the patent
holder down at every level along the way without flinching even once.

If they made a practice of stinging and suing to bankruptcy every
machine shop small and large in the country, all they would do is
force them all to shut down and send all the work overseas. Or you
would have to require the same notarized statements and piles of
paperwork out of every customer, with huge costs to print file and
track it all to Mil-Spec standards, and no assurance that it would
protect you when the inevitable claim comes in.

And then there's the Junk Patent angle, where someone sneaks through
a patent on fire, the inclined plane or the wheel (or equiv. glaringly
obvious thing) and starts looking for infringers...

"Have a Lathe, Own a Bolt and Nut, Go to Jail." Big Brother,
anyone?

I looked into this a bit today. It appears that machine shops who
unknowingly make something for someone else that violates a patent are
generally not held liable unless there is some reason they should have known
the item was patented. I didn't go looking for legal opinions but I did read
through some case histories.

It appears the smarter shops have a patent indemnity clause in their sales
agreements. Here's one typical example:

"The products hereunder are manufactured in accordance with the buyer's
specifications and design. Accordingly, buyer shall defend and save harmless
seller from all damages, claims, actions, or suits based upon actual or
alleged infringement of any patent registered in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Indemnity shall include attorney's fees and other costs in defending such
claim."

You'd need a lawyer to tell you if that will stand up, and what happens if
you don't have such a clause. If it ever becomes something worth writing
about I'll do some real research.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:59:45 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

I would still have thought that the primary offender in both the alleged
patent infringement and the alleged copyright infringements would be the
person that commissioned the work. Otherwise there'd be a case against the
machine operators.

Machine operators don't have deep pockets. Blood 'n turnips.

If the person that commissioned the work were an agent of the patent holder or
copyright holder, then the work would have been authorised by definition...

if the definition was clear. Stil begs the question of what is
reasonable due diligence. If a customer commissions a job of clearly
illegal intent, e.g. "designer drugs" for a chemist or terrorist
paraphenalia for the likes of we, is the maker of such goods culpable
or blameless? If you'd hold the maker culpable in that case, then
the question become one of what might be "clearly illegal intent" and
what should be the burden upon the maker to search and discover such
intent.

Freakin' lawyers get fat licking off the glistening parts of such
steaming turds.