decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You might be interested in Microsoft v. AT&T (Supreme Court, 2007) | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thank you for that contribution
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 10:41 AM EDT
This depends on how the claims are written. You have to practice all the
elements of the claim to infringe. This implies we must look at what is in the
claim to know what is infringing. We can't reason on the basis of how the
technology work alone. We have to check what is written in the claim because the
choice of the words makes a difference.

You can infringe on a patent without using the invention. Making, selling and
importing patented invention are also infringing activities. So depending on how
the claim is written the vendor who installs the software and the shop that
sells it to you may be infringers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You might be interested in Microsoft v. AT&T (Supreme Court, 2007)
Authored by: macliam on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 08:06 PM EDT

Apparently method claims are infringed by the end-user. This was mentioned in the congressional hearing on abusive patent litigation that is the subject of the next Groklaw thread. (There was a discussion as to whether the supplier could be sued in place of the end user, and I seem to remember a remark that this is not possible in the case of method claims.) Maybe the software supplier is guilty of "contributory infringement"?

With regard to copying the software abroad, see Microsoft v. AT&T, discussed here on Wikipedia.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )