Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Tom Holmes]

I know of at least one lawyer on this list who has some knowledge of this 
subject, but he has held off from chiming in. Maybe he is waiting for the smoke 
to clear.

Tom Holmes, N8ZM


-Original Message-
From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Chris Caudle
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 10:15 AM
To: time...@metachaos.net; Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement 
<time-nuts@febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature 
controlled TCVCXO)

On Sun, May 15, 2016 8:08 pm, time...@metachaos.net wrote:
> If I understand it correctly,

I would say you do not.

Mike S already covered that by posting the section of US Code 35 which
describes what constitutes patent infringement.

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented
invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Note that "offers to sell" is an "or" condition along with "makes" or "uses."

There are some exceptions as described elsewhere, so as a practical matter
if you make something for your own use it is extremely unlikely to have
any legal consequences.

-- 
Chris Caudle


On Sun, May 15, 2016 8:08 pm, time...@metachaos.net wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, you only violate a patent if you
manufacture
> and
> SELL a product covered by the patent. If you build it for yourself, then
there
> is no violation. Even if you are a company, and you build one for
testing
> and
> evaluation, as long as you don't sell it there is no violation. That is
because there is no "harm" to the patent holder. They have to show that
your
> production affected their potential sales and rights to profit from the
patent. If you build a bunch and GIVE them away, that counts as a
violation as
> well. Of course, giving is just selling with a zero price.
>
> Michael
>
>> In addition to what others write about nobody will come after you for
hobbyist/testing purposes...
>
>> It is surprisingly easy for a patent non-professional to be confused,
about
>> what a patent actually covers (claims) vs does not cover (claim).
>
>> There is a section called "description" that is useful and interesting for
>> techie guys. Especially when the patent was the result of a actual real
device, anyone skilled in the field will be able to read the
>> "description"
>> section of a patent and figure out the device and learn something from the
>> patent. The "citations" and "referred to by" are usually interesting
reading too.
>
>> Beyond that, there is a section called "claims" that actually sets out the
>> legal language about what the inventors, and their patent lawyers, and the
>> patent examiner, eventually decided (probably over a period of months
to
>> years) could be patented. Reading the claim section is surprisingly
tricky.
>> Lots of interesting things (to you and me) in the description are probably
>> not actually claimed because they were claimed by previous patents (See
the
>> patent citations at the bottom). When I'm in a room with the patent
lawyers
>> and they are telling me how to read it, I can manage to follow them and
even learn a little bit of the patent phrase-ology in a way that makes
sense to me. These lessons in patent phrase-ology stick with me for
only
>> a
>> matter of days after we leave the room. The language of the claims is very
>> highly specialized, and even further the patent lawyers have
"optimized"
>> the claims, so that base claims are elaborated on in a very complicated
and
>> ornate way in later claims such that a challenge to any one claim of
the
>> patent will have minimized the effect on negating the whole patent.
>
>> Tim N3QE
>
>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Attila Kinali <att...@kinali.ch>
wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
>>> David <davidwh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect
me
>>> > from a debilitating patent lawsuit.
>>> I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
start a multi-million business.
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Timenut

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Chris Caudle]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 8:08 pm, time...@metachaos.net wrote:
> If I understand it correctly,

I would say you do not.

Mike S already covered that by posting the section of US Code 35 which
describes what constitutes patent infringement.

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented
invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Note that "offers to sell" is an "or" condition along with "makes" or "uses."

There are some exceptions as described elsewhere, so as a practical matter
if you make something for your own use it is extremely unlikely to have
any legal consequences.

-- 
Chris Caudle


On Sun, May 15, 2016 8:08 pm, time...@metachaos.net wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, you only violate a patent if you
manufacture
> and
> SELL a product covered by the patent. If you build it for yourself, then
there
> is no violation. Even if you are a company, and you build one for
testing
> and
> evaluation, as long as you don't sell it there is no violation. That is
because there is no "harm" to the patent holder. They have to show that
your
> production affected their potential sales and rights to profit from the
patent. If you build a bunch and GIVE them away, that counts as a
violation as
> well. Of course, giving is just selling with a zero price.
>
> Michael
>
>> In addition to what others write about nobody will come after you for
hobbyist/testing purposes...
>
>> It is surprisingly easy for a patent non-professional to be confused,
about
>> what a patent actually covers (claims) vs does not cover (claim).
>
>> There is a section called "description" that is useful and interesting for
>> techie guys. Especially when the patent was the result of a actual real
device, anyone skilled in the field will be able to read the
>> "description"
>> section of a patent and figure out the device and learn something from the
>> patent. The "citations" and "referred to by" are usually interesting
reading too.
>
>> Beyond that, there is a section called "claims" that actually sets out the
>> legal language about what the inventors, and their patent lawyers, and the
>> patent examiner, eventually decided (probably over a period of months
to
>> years) could be patented. Reading the claim section is surprisingly
tricky.
>> Lots of interesting things (to you and me) in the description are probably
>> not actually claimed because they were claimed by previous patents (See
the
>> patent citations at the bottom). When I'm in a room with the patent
lawyers
>> and they are telling me how to read it, I can manage to follow them and
even learn a little bit of the patent phrase-ology in a way that makes
sense to me. These lessons in patent phrase-ology stick with me for
only
>> a
>> matter of days after we leave the room. The language of the claims is very
>> highly specialized, and even further the patent lawyers have
"optimized"
>> the claims, so that base claims are elaborated on in a very complicated
and
>> ornate way in later claims such that a challenge to any one claim of
the
>> patent will have minimized the effect on negating the whole patent.
>
>> Tim N3QE
>
>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Attila Kinali 
wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
>>> David  wrote:
>>> > Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect
me
>>> > from a debilitating patent lawsuit.
>>> I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
start a multi-million business.
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Timenutmailto:time...@metachaos.net
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[timenut]

If I understand it correctly, you only violate a patent if you manufacture and
SELL a product covered by the patent. If you build it for yourself, then there
is no violation. Even if you are a company, and you build one for testing and
evaluation, as long as you don't sell it there is no violation. That is
because there is no "harm" to the patent holder. They have to show that your
production affected their potential sales and rights to profit from the
patent. If you build a bunch and GIVE them away, that counts as a violation as
well. Of course, giving is just selling with a zero price.

Michael

> In addition to what others write about nobody will come after you for
> hobbyist/testing purposes...

> It is surprisingly easy for a patent non-professional to be confused, about
> what a patent actually covers (claims) vs does not cover (claim).

> There is a section called "description" that is useful and interesting for
> techie guys. Especially when the patent was the result of a actual real
> device, anyone skilled in the field will be able to read the "description"
> section of a patent and figure out the device and learn something from the
> patent. The "citations" and "referred to by" are usually interesting
> reading too.

> Beyond that, there is a section called "claims" that actually sets out the
> legal language about what the inventors, and their patent lawyers, and the
> patent examiner, eventually decided (probably over a period of months to
> years) could be patented. Reading the claim section is surprisingly tricky.
> Lots of interesting things (to you and me) in the description are probably
> not actually claimed because they were claimed by previous patents (See the
> patent citations at the bottom). When I'm in a room with the patent lawyers
> and they are telling me how to read it, I can manage to follow them and
> even learn a little bit of the patent phrase-ology in a way that makes
> sense to me. These lessons in patent phrase-ology stick with me for only a
> matter of days after we leave the room. The language of the claims is very
> highly specialized, and even further the patent lawyers have "optimized"
> the claims, so that base claims are elaborated on in a very complicated and
> ornate way in later claims such that a challenge to any one claim of the
> patent will have minimized the effect on negating the whole patent.

> Tim N3QE

> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Attila Kinali  wrote:

>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
>> David  wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
>> > proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect me
>> > from a debilitating patent lawsuit.
>>
>> I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
>> start a multi-million business.
>>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.



-- 
Best regards,
 Timenutmailto:time...@metachaos.net

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Tim Shoppa]

In addition to what others write about nobody will come after you for
hobbyist/testing purposes...

It is surprisingly easy for a patent non-professional to be confused, about
what a patent actually covers (claims) vs does not cover (claim).

There is a section called "description" that is useful and interesting for
techie guys. Especially when the patent was the result of a actual real
device, anyone skilled in the field will be able to read the "description"
section of a patent and figure out the device and learn something from the
patent. The "citations" and "referred to by" are usually interesting
reading too.

Beyond that, there is a section called "claims" that actually sets out the
legal language about what the inventors, and their patent lawyers, and the
patent examiner, eventually decided (probably over a period of months to
years) could be patented. Reading the claim section is surprisingly tricky.
Lots of interesting things (to you and me) in the description are probably
not actually claimed because they were claimed by previous patents (See the
patent citations at the bottom). When I'm in a room with the patent lawyers
and they are telling me how to read it, I can manage to follow them and
even learn a little bit of the patent phrase-ology in a way that makes
sense to me. These lessons in patent phrase-ology stick with me for only a
matter of days after we leave the room. The language of the claims is very
highly specialized, and even further the patent lawyers have "optimized"
the claims, so that base claims are elaborated on in a very complicated and
ornate way in later claims such that a challenge to any one claim of the
patent will have minimized the effect on negating the whole patent.

Tim N3QE

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Attila Kinali  wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
> David  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
> > proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect me
> > from a debilitating patent lawsuit.
>
> I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
> start a multi-million business.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Bob Camp]

Hi

> On May 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp  wrote:
> 
> 
> In message , David writes:
> 
>> Commercial use also includes using the patent in production in some
>> way outside of selling an item which uses the patent.

…. and now patient troll armies are busy coming up with an “innovative 
response”. :)

Bob

> 
> The Supreme Court recently limited that significantly, buy reiterating
> that you had to perform _all_ steps of a patent to infringe it:
> 
>   http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-786_664d.pdf
> 
> -- 
> Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message , David writes:

>Commercial use also includes using the patent in production in some
>way outside of selling an item which uses the patent.

The Supreme Court recently limited that significantly, buy reiterating
that you had to perform _all_ steps of a patent to infringe it:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-786_664d.pdf

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[David]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:56:06 +0200, you wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
>David  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
>> proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect me
>> from a debilitating patent lawsuit.
>
>I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
>start a multi-million business.

It is not a big concern but if something is worth doing, then it might
be worth doing while also providing a kit or finished unit.  I would
put some effort into avoiding any imperial, err, patent entanglements.

I agree that the risk is miniscule at the hobby level.

>...
>
>As a hobbyist, you are not a target. For one, patents are about
>commercial use only. If you don't sell it, patents don't apply
>(this is a bit simplified, but not incorrect). You cannot be
>sued for publishing schematics or blueprints either. It's not
>infringement to talk about a patent, is it? And last but not
>least, you don't have money. Even if someone sued you, they
>will not get anything out of it, so it's not worth the truble.

Commercial use also includes using the patent in production in some
way outside of selling an item which uses the patent.

>...
>
> Attila Kinali
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects (was: Temperature controlled TCVCXO)

[Attila Kinali]

On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:32:58 -0500
David  wrote:

> Thanks for those.  I went over them pretty carefully and what I am
> proposing is not covered by either although that would not protect me
> from a debilitating patent lawsuit.

I wouldn't worry about patent lawsuits at all unless you intend to
start a multi-million business.

I've been active for over a decade in the extremely patent ridden
field of open source video coding (video encoders and players).
Everything in video coding is patented. For loops, 2D FFT/DCTs,
taking a difference of two values... you name it. Yet, over all
those years, there were very few clashes with companies on
intellectual property, and most of them boiled down on using
some of their trademarked names, more than anything else.

As a hobbyist, you are not a target. For one, patents are about
commercial use only. If you don't sell it, patents don't apply
(this is a bit simplified, but not incorrect). You cannot be
sued for publishing schematics or blueprints either. It's not
infringement to talk about a patent, is it? And last but not
least, you don't have money. Even if someone sued you, they
will not get anything out of it, so it's not worth the truble.

If a company feels like they need to do something, you most
likely will get an email telling you that they don't like
your blog post, or whatever, and that you should take it
offline. If comply, nothing will happen. If you answer back
that you are insisting on your right of free speech, it 
is very likely that nothing will happen either. At most
you'll get another email saying that you should really consider it.


Attila Kinali


-- 
Reading can seriously damage your ignorance.
-- unknown
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.