[XCSSA] Re: [SATLUG] Did everyone catch this--Microsoft takes on the free world

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

Hi all,

I just asked my brother-in-law, who is an attorney in California,  
about this.  He is NOT a patent attorney.  However, over the years,  
he has had considerable personal interest in patents (though I don't  
believe he has one yet).

He says that the personal use of a patent is OK.  BUT you cannot  
distribute it in any way, even as a "gift."  Any transfer of a  
patented invention from one person to another counts the same to the  
law as a "sale," regardless of whether any money changes hands or not.

In any case, even a "free" transfer could be accompanied by some sort  
of quid-pro-quo.   In the case of Red Hat, they are of course getting  
the opportunity to sell you the service for your technology, and they  
are automatically in an advantaged position if you got the software  
from them also.

Of course, even if my brother-in-law were a patent attorney, he could  
be wrong anyway.  (One attorney to a case is always wrong, and they  
could both be wrong.)

But there is certainly cause for concern.

BTW, the same rule (any transfer counts as a sale) applies to  
copyrights as well as patents.  Which must be how RIAA went after  
free file sharing hubs.

Charles


On May 18, 2007, at 10:47 PM, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:

> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 19:37, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:
>> Tweeks,
>>
>> Doesn't the patent holder have the privilege to prevent others from
>> even using technology?  What about the privilege to prevent others
>> from "distributing" technology, whether they charge for it or not?
>
> Honestly, I don't know enough about patent law to say.  But most of  
> the big
> cases /do/ seem to focus on the fact of "revenue sharing" from the  
> "infringed
> technology".  Which technically, Red Hat is not directly selling.   
> Only the
> services around the free distribution of said FREE technology in  
> question.
> Again.. I ain't no lawyer.. ;)
>
>
>> I'm one of those who opposes software patents in principle, like
>> FSF.
>
> I have to agree.. especially since the same principal can be applied
> to "processes" which treads into biological and gene patents (which  
> is really
> scary).
>