|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
From the last page of the judgement:
Our holding today is limited
addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self
replicating product. We recognize that such inventions
are becoming ever more
prevalent, complex, and diverse.
In another case, the article’s self-replication
might occur
outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary
but
incidental step in using the item for another purpose.
Cf. 17 U. S. C.
§117(a)(1) (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a
computer program to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
step
in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here
whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such
circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans
solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the
reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion
provides no haven for that conduct. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
