My Patent Research for TGP Owners
All right I did a little research tonight on Patent law as it apples to people that link to hosted movie galleries.
Here is what I believe is the relevant law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
Quote:
Sec. 271. - Infringement of patent
1. (a)
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(b)
Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
(c)
Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.
[/b]
|
In the context of linking to other people?s hosted galleries we are talking about part (b)
Now the following analysis is from this site:
http://www.biojudiciary.org/subpage1.asp?tid=153
Quote:
To prove inducement-type infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), there must first be an inducement to engage in certain conduct and, secondly, the conduct being induced must constitute direct infringement. That is, there is no inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in the absence of a resulting direct infringement. Furthermore, although direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) must occur within the borders of the U.S., the inducement to commit such direct infringement may occur overseas as well.
1. The test for induced infringement under § 271(b) is whether there was active aiding and abetting of another's direct infringement. Additionally, the inducer must specifically have intended to induce infringement. The following acts are widely considered to be acts of induced infringement - designing a product to infringe a patent, providing a direct infringer instructions on how to use a patented process or how to design an infringing product; product advertising, solicitation, and product instruction; and licensing, where the licensor provides instructions, plans, or the like, enabling the licensee to practice the patented product or process; assisting a direct infringer to make the product; preparing consumer use instructions; and exerting control over a direct infringer's manufacture of the infringing product. Control over another's manufacturing has been found when the inducing party grants an exclusive license to manufacture and sell the infringing product with the requirement that construction of the product be approved by the licensor.
|
Now I bolded the parts that I thought were most relevant to our discussion. In looking at this stuff what seems to be muddy to me is that the sponsor is the one offering the inducement (the hosted gallery) for his (assuming for a moment that patent is valid) direct infringement. What IMO needs to be confirmed is:
A. Who is the infringer? A simplistic question if the Sponsor is the infringer people using the hosted galleries appear to be safer.
B. Would the mere linking to a hosted gallery be seen as inducing by a court the direct infringer (the sponsor) in his/her infringement?
Just my
