On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote: > > 35 USC 271 says: > > > > (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. > > Hmm. So much for my watering can. > > > (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as > > an infringer. > > By not compiling the file, I think we avoid this.
I'm not so sure -- see below on blueprints. > > (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. > > "not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial > noninfringing use" > > Source code by itself has substantial noninfringing uses, such as > publication in a standards document or as a description of the > algorithm. The question is whether source code is a "staple article" or > "commodity of commerce". > > That's where this all devolves into speculation. Do those words amount > to a fancy way of saying "anything", or is there a class of things that > were intended to be excluded from the coverage of the "substantial > noninfringing use" clause? In other words, does "substantial > noninfringing use" act as an absolute defense in this case? I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above: Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-CV-485C(F), 2001. I've uploaded it to http://novalis.org/cases/Moore.html -- let me know if it's garbled in any way. If blueprints are components, then source code definately is. -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
