|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|