Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 7/16/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This of course presumes that a sequence of bits is a "product" in > > patent law. I'm not aware of any caselaw either way. But it does > > seem likey that this would be covered by the "essential element" > > clause in patent law. See e.g. article 60(2) and (3) UK Patent Act: > [snip] > > It would clearly be a misreading of the legislative intent to say that > neither manufacturer nor distributor nor end user needs to obtain a > patent license just because the end user isn't making "commercial" use > of the product.
Note I was talking about the "essential element" of a patent. That's not the same thing as the patented product. Distribution of such a product is always infringement. If you don't distribute the product, but instead only an essential part thereof, then you enter a different area of patent law. > Probably not, if the only basis for that entitlement is the statutory > out provided in 60 (5) (a). But if Thomson actually were to express > the intention of exempting private users of an open source > implementation from the need for a patent license ever to have been > obtained for _their_copy_ I'm not sure where you get that, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the intent of Thomson's statement quoted earlier. All they said was "private use does not need a license." They were very careful to avoid statements about (noncommercial) distribution. Being Dutch I see a parallel with our law on a certain plant - feel free to smoke it, but if you sell it, you're in trouble. > I'm not saying that I think that Thomson is offering such a deal, but > I'm not saying they aren't (or haven't already) either. My impression > is that they are focusing on extracting revenues in return for the > mastering of MP3s for purposes of commercial distribution. That's my impression as well. It doesn't make sense to go after non-commercial distributions, since there's no license money to be obtained. But if the non-commercial distribution hurts the license stream, then the patent holder could consider an injunction. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
