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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Using a known machine in a different way is a new invention. | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
End-user protections
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:12 PM EDT

Why should that matter? The manufacturer was licensed for the patent, what they sold was covered by the license, that should be the end of it as far as the buyer's concerned. If the patent-holder wants to limit the license to a particular field of use once the product leaves the manufacturer, that should properly require an agreement with the buyer. Otherwise, as an ordinary consumer I shouldn't need to check with a lawyer about what I can do with something I bought off the shelf at Walmart.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Using a known machine in a different way is a new invention.
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:51 PM EDT
It is a method invention. It is unlikely that a user will stumble across a new
method that is not obvious because of the functions of the known machine.

That should exclude the method invention under later sections of the patent
act.

Further, how is the 'inventor' ever going to discover that the end user has
discovered his fabulous method invention and is using it without a licence? That
is not going to happen unless the end user is a large company and blabs about
it.


---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )