[Patents] What are the limits of patent owner's privileges?

[critto@poczta.wp.pl (Krzysztof Sobolewski)]

On Friday 14 December 2001 13:17, you wrote:
> > Can the patent owner regulate the aspects such as sale, distribution and
> > use of a thing, that has some patented parts, and thus, limiting the free
> > trade?
>
> There is a principle of exhaustion of rights: once someone has produced
> a car under a patent license and brought the car on the market, the patent
> owner can no longer restrict what the buyer does with the car.

Thank you. Now I'm calmer for a moment.
By the way, I wonder, when somebody will start attempts to undermine this 
rule? This wouldn't be anything new, according to the reality we live in -- 
violating the conventions (as EPC 52.x), imposing the international tyranny 
(TRIPS) instead, patenting scientific discoveries (eg. genes), taking away 
the fair use doctrine, and violating the First Amendment in the name of 
'extended protection of intellectual property' (the Appeals, Federal and 
Supreme Judging Apes in Togas may claim, that DMCA doesn't violate First 
Amendment, but it does, and Thomas Jefferson (its author) is now turning in 
his grave; alike, one might claim, that NKWD has never violated the Fifth 
Commandment - Thou shalt not kill, but does it change anything?). So, maybe 
the abolition of 'first use' doctrine in copyrights and in patents will be 
the next step, from the IP towards total monopolisation?

Anyway, could anyone answer me -- WHO has taken the reason away from huge 
part of population? Why does a society no longer have its defenders, the 
defenders of public rights? Why do some 'free' media join the anti-freedom 
movements as pro-software patent? Why our reality is more and more paranoid, 
and there's no one to save us (on the Earth anyway)?

> But of course the patent owner could refuse to license and instead produce
> special cars for a rental service that operates only under the terms
> dictated by him.

What about the good idea of 'compulsory licensing'?

> Shrink-wrap car/seed purchase contracts should also be conceivable.  In
> that case the buyers might breach of a contract, even if not infringing on
> a patent.

I know, I know, and I'm not the enemy of such contracts. Foremost, they bind 
only the parties that signed it. They might be a good alternative to patents, 
too.  Of course, if the law says the bind other people (not only the 
parties), it's a bad law.

Yours,

   Krzysztof (Christopher) "Critto" Sobolewski
   critto@wp.pl