Re: Pros. and Cons. of Non-Publication of after 18 months

IIRC, the wording usually used in the statutes and regulations is ... 'would
have been infringing if the patent had issued'. This obviates the need to
refer to licenses or other extraneous things ... Pete

"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [ about decidng whether or not to have a pending patent application
> > published ]
> >
> >>This can be a major benefit if you are patenting subject matter for
which
> >>the PTO backlog is long, but entities are infringing now.
> >
> > Is it really fair to say they are "infringing now", given that in this
> > scenario the patent has not yet been granted and the patent application
> > has not yet been published?
>
> No it really isn't accurate to call them infringers at that point.
Perhaps
> we should label them potential future licensees?
>
> Isaac