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.
Poul-Henning wrote:
The Supreme Court recently limited that significantly, buy reiterating
that you had to perform _all_ steps of a patent to infringe it:
David wrote:
Bear in mind that not all the steps have to be performed by one entity
for infringement to exist.
Poul-Henning wrote:
Did y
Am Fri, 13 May 2016 20:28:04 -0500
schrieb David :
> It figures that HP would have done this if anybody had. I am not that
> familiar with their design history so thanks for bringing this to my
> attention.
>
> I did not find anything in the theory section of the original service
> manual althou
In case anyone's in London this week, the NPL have an open day :
http://www.npl.co.uk/openhouse/
___
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 th
In message , jimlux writes:
>On 5/15/16 1:12 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.
>>
>> The Supreme Court recently limited
On 5/14/2016 5:56 AM, Attila Kinali wrote:
> 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).
Not sure where you are, but it's definitely incorrect for the US, where
mere use, let alone making, can be infr
On 5/15/16 1:12 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.
The Supreme Court recently limited that significantly, buy reiterating
that you had to per
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 a
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 “inn
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:
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 wo
- Original Message -
From: "Brooke Clarke"
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects
Hi Attila:
In the late 1950s I bought an oscilloscope kit branded EICO (Electronic
In
HI
There are a couple of forks in this one:
If it’s a commercial (or even a kit) product, doing it with surplus parts
probably isn’t a great idea. The shock
is going to be doing a low volume run at commercial prices. There really isn’t
any way around that.
If it’s for a basement project there
13 matches
Mail list logo
