@sarahjeong US can be sued for infringement, 35 U.S.C. 296. But that would require the patent holder knowing about it, I suppose.
-
-
-
@vranieri can US be sued for contracting with someone who's selling an infringing technique? -
@sarahjeong Pretty much: if someone is infringing at the behest of the US gov't, that goes to Ct of Fed Claims. -
@sarahjeong this sometimes comes up in handset cases, e.g. A def will say "sales to us gov't have to be heard in ct of claims"
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong as a side note, there are patents that are classified and not made public, b/c of nat sec concerns. 35 USC 181 -
@vranieri@sarahjeong That sounds so, so wrong. -
@CathyGellis@vranieri@sarahjeong Fun history on this stuff: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89127786 … -
@adikamdar@vranieri@sarahjeong So basically this is what the US govt did to avoid being held to account for what was essentially a taking? -
@CathyGellis@adikamdar@sarahjeong *shrug*, I don't think it's terrible. patents are public. Some things prob shouldn't be public. -
@vranieri@adikamdar@sarahjeong Then they can be state secrets. Like companies have trade secrets. This seems like an abuse of patent law.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong@vranieri could do it in the UK, the govt can override patents in the service of the Crown thereMerci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.