Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Roy,

Administrative offices are frequently the poorest source of legal
information - especially when worded as vaguely as above.

I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than
administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who
aren't lawyers.


Instead, Court records show a vastly different interpretation:
"Even though infringement is found, one factor that may negate
willfulness is a bona fide attempt by the alleged infringer to
design around the patent. ... The Federal Circuit reversed,
stating:
This court has indicated that the incentive to "design around"
patents is a positive result of the patent system.... One of
the benefits of a patent system is its so called
"negative incentive" to "design around" a competitor's
products, even when they are patented, thus bringing a steady
flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be
discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where
conduct is so obnoxious as clearly to call for them."

The obnoxious conduct, in this case, was the licensing of a technology
to then develop patents that would then render the original useless as
a commodity (the only value of a patent). In other words "bad faith"
agreements.

The ruling is from one of many (883) articles on the web specifically
directed toward the State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc. case

More on willful infringement:

"Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around
existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the
patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement,
particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design
process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815,
823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere
attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See,
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110
(Fed. Cir. 1986).

By-and-large, it is overwhelmingly clear that all such cases brought
and LOST were against commercial interests and not lone individuals.
. . .

So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of
a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)?
That's not obvious to me from the short quotes you gave, and I'm
surprised in any case that you can draw such a sweeping conclusion from
a couple of paragraphs. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Are you?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL