Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > > > What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone > > who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing, > > even if their piece, in isolation, would not be. > > What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe > here is the *non-interesting* one?
Well, it's the one that matters. You want to rephrase it, and yet the phrasing matters. The bit about whether one of the steps has some important non-infringing use does not make that step OK, because the relevant fact is what the person who did it *intendend*, which is a question of fact that a jury can decide. If your intention was for it to be part of a complex, which is infringing, then you are in violation, whether or not what you did also happens to have some other use. If it *doesn't* have some other use, then that is *excellent* evidence of your intention, but it isn't the only way to demonstrate the intention.
