Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Appeals Court: You Can Infringe a Patent Even If You Didn't Do All the Steps 126

reebmmm writes "In a much anticipated patent law case, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit overturned existing law and came out in favor a new rule for indirect infringement: you can still be liable for infringing even if no single person does all the infringement. This case consolidated two different cases involving internet patents. In McKesson v. Epic, a lower court found that Epic did not infringe a patent about a patient portal because one of the steps was performed by the patient accessing the portal. In Akamai v. Limelight, the lower court found that Limelight did not infringe because its customers, not the company itself, tagged content. This is likely headed for the Supreme Court."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Appeals Court: You Can Infringe a Patent Even If You Didn't Do All the Steps

Comments Filter:
  • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Saturday September 01, 2012 @03:39PM (#41201051)

    Namely, the fact that patents and copyrights are unrelated.

    Copyrights and patents are not "unrelated", they both deal with "intellectual property".

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday September 01, 2012 @04:19PM (#41201281)

    "Basically, if you work around a patent's claim by ommiting step(s), but the user(s) are able to perform these ommitted steps, then you are liable."

    Right. By analogy: now I can be liable for murder because I sold someone a gun legally, and he used it to kill somebody. He's not liable, but I am!

    That's just loony.

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday September 01, 2012 @04:26PM (#41201337)

    They don't have much in common except that they both go under the dubious umbrella of "intellectual property".

    "Intellectual property" is a term that was entirely made up for use as propaganda by rights-holders. It is actually a contradiction in terms, because there is no "property" at all involved in copyrights and patents, just time-limited privileges granted by government. But they have wanted you to THINK in terms of it being their "property". That makes you more amenable to distortions of the policies and laws.

    It's the same basic idea as calling downloading "piracy", when it isn't. (Copyright piracy actually has a legal definition that hasn't really changed in about 100 years.) Downloading is not a crime. Piracy is. But Big Media wants you to think of them as the same. They can get away with more that way.

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday September 01, 2012 @04:49PM (#41201517)

    "hmmm - judging from the two cases linked in the summary, it would be more like you choosing the gun, buying it, asking the seller to load it, and then killing someone with it - and claiming that you can't be done for murder because someone else performed one of the 'steps' (loading the gun)"

    No, if you want to get particular: in the Akamai case, it is as though you sold someone a loaded gun, with the knowledge that he was going to kill someone with it, and then he did. That might in fact be actionable... you might be considered an accessory or even an accomplice.

    In the other case, it is as though you talked Joe into loading the gun, and selling it to Sam, then talked Sam into going to meet Bob and kill him. It that case, you did not actually perform any of the actions. And if you did not hold some kind of unusual persuasive power over them (e.g., they were "brainwashed" in some sort of highly unlikely manner) or hold some kind of coercive power over them (you kidnapped their children), then you probably did not break the law. You simply made suggestions, and the other guys should have known better.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Saturday September 01, 2012 @08:20PM (#41202683) Homepage

    Patents and copyrights expire.

    Actual property rights do not.

    Copyrights and Patents exist only because that power is granted to the Government under a limited set of circumstances. It is not a right granted to individuals like those listed in the Bill of Rights. It does not exist for the benefit of the "owner". It exists for a limited time for the benefit of society in general.

    The unbound nature of a thought makes the abiltiy to exclude others from it as a natural right rather absurd.

  • 2012 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onemorechip ( 816444 ) on Saturday September 01, 2012 @08:47PM (#41202825)

    So, will 2012 be remembered in history as the year we finally kissed innovation goodbye? Or at least, the year that the USA abandoned innovation to foreign countries?

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.

Working...