Pirate Congress 2012 Motions/Motion:Non-Commercial Patent Infringement

From Pirate Party Australia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Non-Commercial Patent Infringement

Current motion

Workspace

We're entering the era of creating tangible objects on demand in our very own home and need to strongly ensure the 'right to participation in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications' is respected while not allowing commercial use of the Intellectual property of others [Article 27, Universal Declaration of Human Rights].

The ability to create on demand are called 3D printers that can print tangible objects. This allows the ability to make toys, hats, pills, food, bones and even cars vastly more cheaper. There is also the possibility of self-replication (eg reprap project). It's important to give explicit protection for the people against vexatious litigation or disproportionate enforcement that may sometime in the future, attempt to restrict development of their patents for private non-commercial use in the form of restricting materials, declaring or implying such printers as devices for patent infringement, a reason for stricter enforcement (Internet filter, crippling unenforceable fines), et al [Article 30, Universal Declaration of Human Rights].

An exception was granted for research and experimental purposes regarding non-commercial use to the Patents Act 1990. We believe it does not go far enough because an individual printing for themselves are still vulnerable to disproportionate enforcement and litigation responses that equates commercial infringement with non-commercial infringement.

Currently, this means the relevant law(s) is required to decriminalise non-commercial use of patents to respect the human rights of the people.

Historically;

1) An exception was granted for research and experimental purposes regarding non-commercial use to the Patents Act 1990. We believe it does not go far enough because an individual printing for themselves are still vulnerable to disproportionate enforcement and litigation responses.

2) The Pirate Bay had recently allowed computer models to be uploaded that can lead to tangible objects of which some can infringe on patents.

References

Copyright Act

Article 27 Human Right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_27

ICESCR, Article 15.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Right_to_participation_in_cultural_life

[http://researchroadmap.osmr.nsw.gov.au/Sectors/LifeSciences/IntellectualProperty/A.4.3.3.htm "Australia does not have an exemption under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) for activities that are research only or not for commercial application. Researchers must always consider whether their activities infringe an existing patent."]

Important implications

  • 3D printers can potentially run afoul of patent law for non-commercial development of favourite products.
  • There was a recent exemption to Patent Law for non-commercial research use, so it can be interpreted that students can use patents to build products.
  • "... under the Copyright Act, the maximum term of imprisonment for making a device intended for making infringing copies of a work is 5 years, whereas the maximum imprisonment term for a similar offence under the Trade Marks Act is 2 years." http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=643:patent-and-trade-marks-acts-to-be-strengthened&catid=5:ip-tech-a-e-biz&Itemid=144
  • Chemicals, drugs, DNA could be produced for non-commercial use. [ Tech Know: Life hacking with 3D printing and DIY DNA kits http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8595734.stm ]. [Legal question: Could it run afoul under gene and medicine patents?]
  • Toys, glasses, and other easy printable patent products could run afoul under general patent laws. [Legal question: Could making own products without resale be illegal? What about sharing, akin to filesharing?]
  • 3D Printers could be severely restricted under 'job loss' fears. As well, entire companies seized 'for encouraging infringement'. [Legal question: Is it illegal for 3D printers to state that anything could be printed, even cars, etc? My general question is akin to UK linking and megaupload except without the explicit encouragement on fostering ability to share]
  • More ease of copyright infringement as people become curious on how their favourite product works. For example, the most popular phone series is Apple which jealously guards the workings.
  • Printing parts can be construed as encouraging patent infringement. For example: Someone wishes to build a car from 'spare pants', orders or prints all the parts and builds them together. [Legal question: Is it illegal to sell parts and/or use parts to make whole?]
    • <BlackPawn> Sometimes there's one part which is considered the root of the assembled product. Firearms work that way, maybe engines work that way for cars.
    • Another discussion on it; http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?58,44938,44938 Dangerous items vs. Dangerous Censorship
  • A person missing a small part that's not otherwise sold or readily available but is patented and used as part of the product as whole, could benefit from printing a part. Similar to downloading TV series because there's a 1-2 year delay before national airing.
    • eg; "Sorry we need to get a critical car part specially made at the factory in China, there'll be about 2 month delay during which your car will be unroadworthy."

Some potential sources:

Similar but non-Australian


Other topics relating to patent infringement

Discussion

Nothing at this time.

Retrieved from "http://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=Pirate_Congress_2012_Motions/Motion:Non-Commercial_Patent_Infringement&oldid=598"