Talk:Research exemption

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

Research exemption not the same as 35 USC 271(e)(1) 'safe harbor'

There is a difference between the "research exemption" and the Safe Harbor under 271(e)(1). The Supreme Court did not address whether there is a "research exemption" in Merck v. Integra, so it is not correct to put the two together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.195.114 (talk • contribs)

I entirely agree with the previous comment. The two bases of defence have different origins and different scope. The main article proceeds from a misconception. But it's hardly practical to give a good careful account of this without the thing being out of order as including OR. There's a similar dichotomy in the laws of some other countries outside the US, too. I can't see a prospect of getting this subject into good shape here. Terry0051 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]