[LINK] Is it unethical to infringe a patent?

[Brendan Scott]

Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Brendan Scott [brendansweb at optusnet.com.au] wrote:
>> Just an open question really.  Assuming that patents are a form  of property:
>>
>> (a) would it be unethical to infringe a patent?  (eg: exercise a patent without the permission of the patent holder)
>>
>> (b) would it be a form of stealing?
>>
>>
>> I'm interested in views generally but, of course, since few people actually believe patents are (or even should be) a form of property, I'm particularly interested in the views of anyone who does so believe. 
> 
> 
> an infringement of a patent requires a new characterisation. back when
> land was plentiful it may not have been obvious that your where
> crossing someones title. was crossing very large unfenced titles an offence?
> 
> likewise its not obvious, because of the simplistic system of implementation that
> you are infringing. the difficult legalese language of patents does not help.
> 
> it is certainly unethical to knowingly infrige a patent or continue to
> do so once informed. I dont know that stealing is the right word either,
> if you knowlingly make use of patented ideas without permission then
> that is certainly stealing. but if you inadvertently use a patent its
> more like unauthorised free riding.

"Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for."
Attributed to Bill Gates, 
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-ix-gates-watches-pirated-videos/
Not a subscriber, but apparently sourced from here: http://online.wsj.com/search#SB115047983595282559


Geoff's post implied to me that a patent wasn't essential.  Do you think a patent is - necessary? sufficient? - to make a knowing unauthorised exploitation unethical?  
 
> what is required is a clear fencing system for patents, so it doesnt
> require a team of lawyers to determine where you are at. the principle
> of the  system if fine, the implementation in a software context hasnt
> caught up.


So Vic, you're in the knowingly-is-essential camp then?   


This is for all you knowingly-is-essential people: on the ethics of the issue, should people be required to take positive steps to find out whether they are infringing? ie: Is it unethical for someone to remain just ignorant? How about to be wilfully blind where there's a suggestion of infringement?


Thanks

Brendan