Re: what does a patent restrict?

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Jeroen Hellingman <jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, after State Street and AT&T, it's not clear that we even
> > need to bother with this fiction anymore. It might be that the program
> > itself is patentable regardless of the medium in which it is embodied --
> > including paper. [And patent claims to computer processes are probably
> > valid even though they don't specify a medium in which the process will
> > occur].
>
> This means that the purpose of patent law (to promote public
> availability of knowledge) has transmongled by doublespeak lawyers

What is a "doublespeak lawyer"?

> to obtain the total opposite, because,

opposite of what?

> if we cannot record what a patent claims, (in some precise knowledge,
> for which English is not suitable) we cannot distribute the knowledge
> at all.

just read the claims (the numbered paragraphs at the end of the patent) if you want an idea what is covered. If the patent claims a medium, the medium infringes. If the patent claims an apparatus including a computer, the computer is necessary for direct (but not for contributory or induced) infringement. This "doublespeak lawyer" has been saying nothing but this for the past two weeks -- this *is* the law and has been the practice since peripheral claiming had existed.

The only confusion derives from those who think that patent law infringement principles must comport with the intuitions of those who are familiar only with copyright law.

> Laywers will be the undoing of the U.S. one day...

Maybe -- but could it be worse than what the clients are presently doing to it?

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Tue Oct 19 1999 - 10:09:11 GMT