[sdiy] Circuit copying

[cheater cheater]

You worked at Tandy? Woah.
How did the TI lawsuit end up? What was it about? Hope your side won!
Great to get some info from someone as knowledgable as you are!
I assume what you're mentioning is only for US law? Or are you fully
certain that this philosophy also applies to EU laws?

> b) if someone builds a circuit which is patented
> and uses it for THEMSELVES there is not much
> the patent holder can do (what 'damages' have occurred?)
One could argue that the damage was that one potential customer was
removed from the market; and that this actuin is enforcing such
behaviour so in the end you lose thousands of users because of a DIY
trend. But that doesn't apply, because as you stated is 'damages as a
result of a third party selling'. No selling involved = no claim
possible!

Cheers

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM,  <synth1 at airmail.net> wrote:
> a) all patent does is provide a legal recourse for collecting damages as a result of a third part selling what is covered in the claims of the patent.
>
> Now, read the above and note several critical words
>
> - collecting
> - damages
> - selling
> - what is claimed
>
> So, reverse engineering a circuit and then publishing it is NOT a violation of any patent. It may be snarky, but that's about it.
>
> b) if someone builds a circuit which is patented and uses it for THEMSELVES there is not much the patent holder can do (what 'damages' have occurred?)
> c) all that "matters" are the claims at the end of the patent. All the stuff up in the front is *worthless*, patent-wise. That info is for the
> examiner, not the patent itself. For the patent to "hold up", the offending circuit has to not violate ANY of the claims. And usually, it's the very
> last claim that gets people, because the tendency is to 'throw the kitchen sink' in at then end and try to have a very far-reaching claim (I was
> involved in a Texas Instruments legal patent fight that the last claim basically invented the telephone).
>
> d) analog synth patent were for 17 years, they are LONG expired. Most Yamaha FM patents are also expired.
>
> e) a patent holder is not REQUIRED to collect damages, in many cases they 'patent swap'.
>
> f) the "normal and considerate" royalty for patents is 3% of the retail price. This will vary wildly, but 3% is always the starting point. This came
> about with Sony's patent on the 1-cassette answering machine (outgoing message is on the same cassette as the incoming messages). Trust me, I lived
> patent law for 12 years at Tandy, it's quite interesting.
>
> Paul S.
> has 9 patents
>
>
>
>
> ---- Msg sent via Internet America Webmail - www.internetamerica.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>