Thanks Andrew --

Cheers,

Alan

-----

At 8:09 PM -0400 5/26/03, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>That would be too reasonable to expect of a Federal statute, Alan. 
>Alas, the Patent Act generally proscribes ANY practicing of a patent 
>during the term, whether commercial or not (Making, using, selling, 
>offering for sale).  The only interesting question is whether the 
>conduct infringes -- not whether it was "goodie, goodie" enough to 
>avoid liability.
>
>That said, there is case law supporting an "experimental use" or 
>"fair use" exception.  An interesting article on the subject can be 
>found at:
>
>	http://www.idea.piercelaw.edu/articles/30/p243.Grossman.pdf
>
>This exception is not very well-developed or clear, perhaps at the 
>level of the initial fair use case under the 1909 Act case law 
>(which recognized a fair use exception without a statute).
>
>On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
>
>>I don't think you have infringed the patent. But now I'm not so 
>>sure. I think there used to be a provision that individuals could 
>>make a single version of anything for their own use (Andrew?).
>>
>>I think that the patent stuff is supposed to prevent competition 
>>for sale of ideas and technologies, but it doesn't prevent people 
>>making onesies for themselves.
>>
>>There is a different but related notion of "fair use" in copyright 
>>law. One of the things that is most under attack right now is "fair 
>>use" and what it means -- and indeed what patents and copyrights 
>>actually mean these days.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>------
>>
>>  At 5:57 PM -0400 5/26/03, Rick McGeer wrote:
>>>Alan,
>>>Of course, one should always attribute.  But there is another 
>>>question here. Suppose somebody patents a structure or protocol 
>>>without implementing it.  I independently discover the thing, or 
>>>something closely related, and implement it to see how it works in 
>>>practice, how it fits with existing stuff, etc.  In the tradition 
>>>of scientific publication, I want not only to write up the results 
>>>but also release the source so others can play with the idea, 
>>>experiment, extend, etc.  I've got no interest in selling the 
>>>thing or exploiting it commercially.  Question: have I infringed 
>>>the patent, am I liable for damages, etc?  It would be really 
>>>nasty to get sued for writing a paper...
>>>Best,
>>>Rick.
>>>Alan Kay writes:
>>>>I don't think you do need the agreement. But it is the tradition 
>>>>of science to always give attribution to the creators of the 
>>>>ideas. So "use and attribute".
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Alan
>>>>-----
>>>>At 7:08 PM +0200 5/25/03, Hans Nikolaus Beck wrote:
>>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>if I want to implement  an algorithm or visualization technique 
>>>>>in an open source project  (in fact: squeak) which was presented 
>>>>>in a public paper (in this case IEEE Computer Graphics & 
>>>>>Visualization), do I need the agreement of the authors ? That's 
>>>>>a question related to the current situation of software patents 
>>>>>and copyright as given by law of USA.  My feeling says: I need 
>>>>>the agreement.
>>>>>Greetings
>>>>>
>>>>>Hans
>>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
>>>>>iD8DBQE+0Ph4X8NXna8434cRAjOvAKCC/dPtuidQ6dasGBornR+2bilpGQCg92Zj
>>>>>Ki5vzhrdTzT6Svb8lNmDFxU=
>>>>>=mnPl
>>>>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Rick McGeer           Ph: (925) 254-2524
>>>50 Diablo View Road  FAX: (925) 253-0623
>>>Orinda, CA, 94563    Cell: (510) 334-6004
>>>eMail: rick at mcgeer.com
>>>Yahoo IM: rickmcgeer
>>>MSN IM: rickmcgeer at hotmail.com
>>>AOL IM: rick mcgeer 1
>>
>>
>>--


--