Wait wait, what? When you file for a patent, you make your invention known. In detail. With plans. That's public. The idea being that if somebody uses your designs, they pay you a reasonable licensing fee.
These are just plans. Even if they incorporate patented designs, those designs are public knowledge. It's the use and implementation of those designs that's restricted.
An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an
invention shall not do so if -
(a) it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial;
(b) it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention;
...
There are other clauses too, for example allowing farmers to use the products of plants they've acquired lawfully.
35 USC 271 has some very limited exceptions too (research related to pharmaceuticals is one IIRC).
It's funny that in the US there is such liberty for copyright but patents seem to be locked down relative to other jurisdictions. I assume you're talking about USA, no one ever seems to note despite it being crucial in discussions of law.
Comments
Wait wait, what? When you file for a patent, you make your invention known. In detail. With plans. That's public. The idea being that if somebody uses your designs, they pay you a reasonable licensing fee.
These are just plans. Even if they incorporate patented designs, those designs are public knowledge. It's the use and implementation of those designs that's restricted.
Am I missing something?
Yes. Anyone building or using one of these would be open to a patent suit (if it violates any patents). There is no patent equivilant to "fair use".
In the UKPA Section 60(5)(a), (b) says:
An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if - (a) it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial; (b) it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention; ...
There are other clauses too, for example allowing farmers to use the products of plants they've acquired lawfully.
35 USC 271 has some very limited exceptions too (research related to pharmaceuticals is one IIRC).
It's funny that in the US there is such liberty for copyright but patents seem to be locked down relative to other jurisdictions. I assume you're talking about USA, no one ever seems to note despite it being crucial in discussions of law.