There seem to be some misconceptions about what patents are for: A U.S. patent as defined in section 35 of the U.S. code does NOT assure the inventors of the right to practice. It guarantees their exclusivity to practice within the scope of the patent claims, for the lifetime of the patent.
If that sounds confusing, here's a real-world example that I am personally familiar with: The use of a particular, naturally ocurring protein for treating a given disease is covered by someone else's patent, but I modify the protein (in some non-obvious way) such that in addition to treating the disease, it now has some new properties (perhaps it is less toxic or it tastes like strawberries). It is a new form of matter with novel properties and therefore patentable. However, I would still need to obtain a license for the original patent to use my own modified protein for treating the disease in question, since that utility falls under the scope of their claims. The original patent holders would in turn have to license my patent to be able to use my new protein to treat this same disease, so that their improved treatment could benefit from the properties of being less toxic or tasting like strawberries, which are covered under the scope of my claims. This actually happens all the time in the biotechnology sector. I hope this is helpful Best Gordon --- Mark Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, at 12:12 PM, Lynch, > Jonathan wrote: > > > My understanding is that for many, the point of > getting a patent is not > > even to prevent others from using the technology - > it may well be too > > broadly defined or have other problems. However, > if you have a patent, > > it guarantees your right to use what you patented > - so others cannot > > patent the idea later and (if they win in court) > keep you from using > > it. > > Prior art and © Copyright also give you freedom to > protect yourself. > This company is a member of W3 consortium and they > are using SGML - XML > which is a markup language. You can't patent a > markup language. It's > too late. It's been blown out of the water by prior > art. > > I guess they have patented the process that occurs > after parsing the > markup language. It must be highly defendable as an > application example > with regards to copyright. > > Interesting idea though. > > my 2 cents > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > ===== :::::::::: Gordon Webster :::::::::: _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution