|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:59:00 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |