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
>
>
> -- 
>