|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
The same logic applies. An end user can use a device to infringe a patent. The
purchase of the device does not give you the right to violate someone's rights.
The logic of such a program is absurd.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
It's hard to see it as anything but deliberate.
It's obvious to any
following the discussion that if the photocopier is applied as proper analogy
then the proper analogy is:
1) get a patent for the process of "using a
photocopier to copy a cookbook"
and
2) get a patent for the process of
"using a photocopier to copy your resume"
and
3) get a patent for the
process of "using a photocopier to copy the schedule of the 8-14 hockey league
you teach"
Now... here's where the deliberate misinterpretation comes into
the picture:
While you have every right to copy your resume and hockey
league schedule that you yourself created - copying that cookbook likely
infringes copyright law (assuming you don't own the associating right on that
work or otherwise have that act properly licensed)
However - the issue
isn't "some forms of legitamit use of a product" vs "some forms of an
illegitamit" use of a product. The underlying issue to the patent problem is
that:
once you start patenting "using the product as intended" - like has
been done with software - all uses of that product for what it was intended
become subject to being illegitamit
And that's just plain wrong. On both
the current Patent Law front (as I understand it) and ethical/moral
front.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|