Let's use a simple tool: the hammer.
When the hammer was first
developed, let's assume patent laws existed at the time.
Now... a patent
is filed that fully describes the hammer and it's usefulness. The patent is
granted.
By the logic provided - if building the hammer is no longer an
infringement of the patent - then it's a different patent that is the concern.
Only when someone actually goes to "use" that hammer is the associating patent
infringed.
Once upon a time patents could only be granted on the
invention itself - not the obvious use of it. Today we see a corruption of
Patent Law wherein each specific use of the tool is allowed (at the USPTO and
Federal circuit levels) to be patented.
The only way to make it illegal
to sue for patent infringement over the use rather than the making is to allow a
patent on:
using a hammer to drive a 1 cm nail into wood
and
using
a hammer to drive a 2 cm nail into wood
and
using a hammer to pound a
rock to break it
and so on.
To certain Patent Lawyers - it makes
perfect sense to be able to patent those. I think the Supremes clearly see that
situation occurring along with why it should not be occurring and are doing
their best to stop it.
I certainly hope Congress sees the sense in
blocking that and step up and explicitly say it.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
