Harold Hallikainen wrote:

>>         http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/98/01/026.html

> Interesting reading. They seem to make a big deal out of the "refurbish
> or repair" distinction. What came to mind to me, though, was that a
> patent grants the patentholder the right to exclude others from the
> right to make, USE, import, and sell the patented device. The "sale" of
> an item is a grant of a license to use the item. If that license
> restricts the use to "single use" (whether that be a printer ink
> cartridge or a medical device), it seems like there should be some right
> to enforce that license term. 

There is -- see the first case they describe.

> If the purchaser does not wish to abide by that license term, he/she can
> not make the purchase. 

But that's exactly what they describe in the article -- at least as I read
it. If a whole patented device is marked for single use and sold as such,
the license terms can be enforced. What the patent holder doesn't seem to
be able to enforce is the replacement of a not patented sub-assembly of the
device, independently of whether the sub-assembly is a consumable or not.
And why should they be able to? It's not patented...

One of the conclusions of the article is exactly that if you want to make
money with such consumables, you should try to patent the consumables (or
use some of the other suggestions they come up with), as a patent on the
whole doesn't help you much. 

To me that makes a lot of sense. I would very much like to be able to
repair any device I own, including replacing broken or otherwise unusable
parts, as long as that doesn't violate any restrictions I agreed to when I
bought it. Or would you think that just because there are some patents on
the CD player you are using (and therefore you are not allowed to make a
copy of it), you shouldn't be allowed to exchange a burned resistor?


> It SEEMS that even if you buy an invention from the inventor, you do not
> have the right to USE it unless the inventor also grants you that right.

I'm not sure that this right to use is not seen as being implied. When I
buy a fridge that is protected by some patents that the manufacturer holds,
I'm pretty sure that any patent court would rule that I do have the right
to use (and maintain in usable condition) that fridge, independently of the
lack of any explicit grant of this right. 

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist