No compulsory licensing of patents in USA.

[greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Perry Metzger writes:

> smb@research.att.com says:
> > Why can't they refuse to license a patent?

> I was under the impression that the law obligated you to license
> patents -- albeit not necessarily at an attractive price. I am quite
> likely to be mistaken on this -- my memory on the topic is very
> sketchy, as demonstrated by the fact that I didn't realize the
> government can patent things (although I was right on copyrights.)

- From "Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright in a
Nutshell", pp 12-13, Miller & Davis, West Pub., 1990. (not a particularly 
authoritative cite, but it ought to do)

"During the life of the patent, the owner has the complete right to 
determine who, if anybody, will have the right to use, make, or sell
the patented item, 35 USCA (s) 261, and to a more limited extent, how or
where it will be initially exploited. It is important to understand that
American law does not require the patentee to put the patent into use or
allow others to do so. The first requirement, of putting the patent into
use, is called 'working' the patent, a requirement with some historical
meaning and considerable foreign patent law significance. The second
requirement, of allowing others to use the patent, is called 'compulsory
licensing.' Like working, there is no absolute American requirement of
compulsory licensing, but other aspects of the law, especially antitrust,
may have the effect of obliging a patent owner to license others to use
the patent."


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQCVAgUBLe+bQn3YhjZY3fMNAQFMbQP/d6MuZtq87sbJIyZQaG05fMfvd2M0uCNP
hL18MTRCMAr+6esg5/QOsSwJ7Xd4XiRPFG3Dhq8U1Itl0zemcKd+5u0pxgAP3Dbu
GkNTDfk3x5TQMjzScchdkL7+V/yZ3G00GnH+kJwGdfIckJd/35nocN0KFVAle/28
Zi66/HIz3Sc=
=AnQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----