decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I'm just using copyright for emphasis | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'm just using copyright for emphasis
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 | # ]

Deliberate misinterpretation of course
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )