Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > rjack wrote: > [...] > > One must be careful to define "Component[]" in context. > > http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html > > "Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a > component of a patented invention, it erred in holding that the creation > of copies of software overseas, based on a master version provided from > the United States, constitutes the supply of those software copies from > the United States." > > So I gather that accoording to USDOJ, supply by means of > > http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ > > would NOT constitute "supply" for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 271(f) > either. Teleporters will undo 35 U.S.C. 271(f)! USDOJ should better > inform the Congress know about that!!! >
Amazon proposes Chinese and French molecul test: ------ I. COMMON SENSE SHOWS THAT A FOREIGN MACHINE PART IS STILL FOREIGN EVEN IF ITS COMPUTER-READABLE DESIGN IS FROM THE U.S. As noted, if a machine is assembled abroad entirely from parts made abroad, then no one would say that a component of the machine was made in the U.S., even if one of the parts was designed in the U.S. This is as true for computers as for other machines. An optical disc made in China from molecules supplied from China, is a Chinese optical disc, even if its pits and lands are arranged in a computer-readable pattern that encodes (stores) a software program, CAD/CAM codes, song, or other information supplied from the United States. This common sense answer is illustrated with the following two-part hypothetical assembly of a French key and lock. Part I: A French key has a unique pattern designed to fit a matching pattern in a French locks mechanism. Both the key and lock are made in France, entirely from materials made in France. Not a single molecule of the key or lock is traceable to the U.S. (See Figure 2). No one would argue that this key component of the key-lock assembly was supplied from the U.S., or that Section 271(f) applies. Part II: Now consider a new fact: the unique pattern of the French key was supplied from the U.S. This pattern (an example of engineering design information) was conveyed from the U.S. in one of a variety of manners. For example: (1) a U.S.-made master key is exported to France where its unique pattern is decoded and duplicated automatically by an electronic key duplication machine to make the French key (see Figure 3), or (2) CAD/CAM computer codes are e-mailed from the U.S. to France where they are used to program a machine to manufacture the key to the unique design specified by the U.S. engineer. No matter how the U.S. pattern is supplied, all of the molecules (matter) of the replicated French key are still supplied entirely from France. Only the design information was supplied from the U.S. and since information is not a physical object, Section 271(f) plainly does not apply. As this hypothetical illustrates, the above-proposed Molecule Test provides a bright line test for anyone concerned about possible liability under Section 271(f): if the foreign assembly does not include a single molecule exported from the U.S. by the potential defendant, then Section 271(f) does not apply. There rarely, if ever, will be uncertainty on this point. [...] Second, on the question of what Microsoft contributed to the foreign computer assemblies, the district court used the terms code and software to refer at times to information and at other times to matter. For example, the district court noted the undisputed fact that the object code is originally manufactured in the United States AT&T, 2004 WL 406640, at *7. Its use of the term manufactured suggests that the district court had in mind physical discs, as products, not information, are manufactured. But its reference to the object code elsewhere may be directed to software information (e.g., a sequence of binary numbers), see AT&T, 2004 WL 406640, at *4 (software or object code contained on the golden master disks). The Federal Circuit made the same mistake. It failed to carefully distinguish between things and the design of those things. Thus, it mistakenly analogized software information to liquids and gases. AT&T Corp., 414 F.3d at 1370-71. Software information is not akin to liquids and gases because it has no mass and no molecules. Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a single molecule being transferredjust as the information in this Brief is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being transferred. ------ regards, alexander. -- "Please do not buy from Amazon" -- Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss