Re: [rp-ml] Re: Zcorp & the future of innovation

From: Adrian Bowyer <>
Date: Wed Nov 23 2011 - 14:31:51 EET

One of the aspects of this discussion that hasn't been mentioned is
that the "it's all legal doom" point of view is mostly US based. The
US legal system on IP is at a global extreme (rather as the UK legal
system on libel is). The rest of the world (and that is, of course,
to say 95% of the human race and the vast majority of global economic
activity) is not nearly so bothered by these issues.

For example, in Europe any private individual can make anything that's
patented for their own use and the question of infringement doesn't
even arise. What they can't do is to sell it or to use it to make
money, of course. In the US people don't have that freedom.

And consider the question of distributing information/data about a
patented thing. Legally that that cannot be an infringement. Why?
Because a patent explicitly requires all the technical data needed to
make the patented object be placed in the public domain in the patent
document*. Thus making such data even more public cannot be an
infringement. And making anything public that was not in the original
patent cannot be an infringement either, because, by definition, it is
not covered by the patent.

*Of course, people try to word patents obscurely to make things 
non-obvious.  But, buy the logic above, clarifying such obfuscation 
cannot be an infringement either.
Best wishes
Dr Adrian Bowyer
On 23/11/11 07:47, Bathsheba wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 5:01 PM, Marshall Burns wrote:
>> Adrian, this is an important point. In this regard, have you
>> followed the
>> outcome of the lawsuits against individuals who downloaded copyrighted
> music
>> and/or videos? If so, can you (or someone here) give us a brief
>> review, or
> a
>> link to a useful article on the subject?
> I can't do any of those things, but what I can report from the ground is
> that there has been no chilling effect. I've heard a lot of stolen
> music; I haven't heard anyone say they stopped stealing it because of
> these lawsuits, or for any other reason.
> I agree with Dr. Bowyer that this type of enforcement as it's now
> practiced has no effect, except to blacken the names of those applying
> it. I also agree that this is the type of enforcement that applies as
> long as RepRap et al stay close to the grass roots. It's not worthwhile
> trying to patent-troll an individual without significant assets.
> Of course, there's a limit to how out you can break while staying low.
> Danger comes first to the clearinghouses -- data exchanges and parts
> sources -- and Napster's head is still dangling from the battlements to
> prove it.
> It's hard to believe things can go on like this indefinitely.
> Unnecessary middlemen _are_ unnecessary, and patent trolls _are_ filthy
> scammers, and while the government can protect business models that are
> obsolete and/or extortionate for a long time, if we believed it would be
> forever, there would be no innovation but what comes out of Microsoft's
> bowels. That would be a dull planet, so I'm grateful we don't live there.
> -Bathsheba
Received on Wed Nov 23 14:32:08 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 07 2012 - 13:25:43 EET