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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 18.104.22.168 (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)