
Non commercial use of patents is not illegal - chaostheory
http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife/2008/04/13/non-commercial-use-of-patents-is-not-illegal/
======
slapshot
Except he's entirely wrong if he's talking about the US.

The only thing you don't need a license for is for purely speculative work,
generally interpreted as nothing more than idle curiosity. Even research (such
as trying to build a new invention out of an old one) is technically patent
infringement unless you have a license.

Here's the actual law:

    
    
         Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USCS Sects. 1 et seq.], whoever without 
         authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States
         during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
    

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html>

It says nothing about noncommercial use.

If you want confirmation, ask Duke University. It tried to argue that non-
commercial research use should be protected in the case _Madey v. Duke
University_. It lost. The Federal Circuit (the court that deals with patent
appeals) held that research use is still use of the invention and still
violates the law.
[http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.asp...](http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=b7930f1d-b945-4f95-b825-fa9ac70c16af)

Here's another good summary of the Duke case:

    
    
        The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied an "experimental use defense"
         in a patent infringement lawsuit against Duke University, signaling that academic
         researchers may be liable for use of patented equipment and processes even without
         use for commercial purposes. The court declared that the noncommercial character
         of the research in Madey v. Duke University was irrelevant. What matters is whether
         the research "is in keeping with the alleged infringer's legitimate business,
         regardless of commercial implications." In the case of a university, noncommercial
         research is "legitimate business," subject to the patent laws.
    

[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1018?...](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1018?siteid=sci&ijkey=kOiAnw9uhtbsM&keytype=ref)

~~~
chaostheory
sigh... I guess US law likes to kill innovation

~~~
slapshot
In real life, nobody ever sues over individual non-commercial use. First, the
company is unlikely to ever know. Second, it's just not worth the hassle--
suing costs tens of thousands of dollars and they'd recover far less.

The law is on the books, but I wouldn't stress too much if you replicated a
patented invention in your basement.

~~~
notauser
Prior to P2P, which made individual copyright violation easy and fun, no one
ever sued over individual non-commercial copyright violation either.

Tape trading mostly went untouched; P2P is being fought.

Making stuff in your basement no problem; Everyone sharing plans for
replication on their own 3D printer not likely to go unnoticed.

------
sdurkin
Long term, a large nuclear fusion power infrastructure plus 3D printers might
make this a reality.

Also, as someone pointed out above, the central point of this article is
incorrect. Manufacturing patented items for non-commercial use is illegal. So
you would still expect to see lawsuits regarding illegal copying similar to
the current RIAA suits.

Now, if the manufacturing of items becomes a trivial process, one could
envision a "dark age" due to the lack of incentive to produce new goods.

------
ovi256
Regulators will probably respond by extending patents to non-commercial use.
After all, if the desktop replicator becomes reality and really manufactures
everything, the only asset corporations retain is IP.

~~~
notauser
Total replacement of manufacturing in the near and medium term is _very_
unlikely, because of the efficiency gains of high volume manufacturing. Things
like casting require much less energy per unit of output when you can use a
high thermal efficiency furnace for example.

In the long term this won't change, however there might be something that
changes to make a surplus of energy a reality so the efficiency drop won't
matter.

~~~
noonespecial
I dunno, that sounds a little like "electric light bulbs will be nothing more
than a novelty item for the rich, they are just not practical for everyday
use".

Put another way; There are economies of scale for mass production, but
$120/bbl oil to truck those things to people might just make those advantages
disappear.

~~~
notauser
You still need to get the same weight (or possibly more) of raw materials to
people, offsetting the cost of transporting finished goods.

There would be some savings, and these same forces are bringing some
manufacturing work back onshore, but not a great deal of it yet.

