Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6974 sci.crypt:4843
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: a real-life patent issue. [it is not safe out there]
Message-ID: <4547:May2223:16:3391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 22 May 91 23:16:33 GMT
References: <a_rubin.674776385@dn71> <19060:May2120:58:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <HANCHE.91May22203428@hufsa.imf.unit.no>
Organization: IR
Lines: 24

In article <HANCHE.91May22203428@hufsa.imf.unit.no> hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes:
> I have seen many references to this "makes, uses, or sells" notion of
> the patent law, and it still has me somewhat confused.  Is there no
> definition of what is meant by "making" and "using", or maybe
> exceptions stated in the law?

Courts don't bother defining the English language. They only clarify
what they meant at the fine lines. Sure, there are exceptions
everywhere, but they don't change what ``making'' means.

> The reason I am asking is this: I had
> always thought it is ok to "make and use" a patented invention for the
> purpose of exploring the patent and its applications.

The precise legal phrase is this: ``for the sole purpose of satisfying
philosophical taste or curiosity, or for instruction and amusement.''
Such use never infringes a patent. This wording has been repeated in
several court cases and forms a very strong precedent by now.

> Have I got it wrong?

You've got it right.

---Dan