On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:59:00 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Actually, I thought that patents explicitly did *not* cover use for  
> research purposes, so either Wikipedia is wrong, the law changed since I  
> learned it, or I'm misremembering. It would seem terribly  
> counter-productive to let patents exclude research, given that the whole  
> patent system is intended to promote research.

I tried looking it up, but it is just too much effort. The actual  
legislative text (35 USC 271) says very little; most of the rules appear  
to have been set by courts. Finding and digging through all the relevant  
court rulings is a bit more effort than I am willing to put in for the  
sake of curiosity.

I did find this little analysis on the experimental use exemption:
  http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/nl/nlassets/pdf/stlc1.pdf

A couple of somewhat relevant quotes from that article:

>  the experimental use defense is strictly limited to activities
>  performed "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for
>  strictly philosophical inquiry."
>  The CAFC stated that any use which has the "slightest commercial
>  implication" or is "in keeping with the legitimate business of the 
>  alleged infringer" cannot qualify for the experimental use defense.

>  The sweeping holding in Madey v. Duke would appear to preclude
>  experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit
>  research organizations, including federal laboratories, research
>  foundations and research hospitals.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message