Do you need a patent to build something privately?

Surely part of the point of patenting is that the solution is published?

It's the other way around, you'll probably need a license for something to build a printer in private. Though since there are too many patents to read, you'll likely only know if you've infringed one once you release to the public and someone sues you.

>you'll probably need a license for something to build a printer in private

Absolutely not. That's half the point of patents, research and personal use are absolutely allowed. Commercial use is disallowed without a license and [sensible] licensing can be forced by recourse to the courts in most jurisdictions.

You can build the printer in private, you can't use it commercially or sell it.

Could you point me to a reference which says that? The best I can do straight off is Wikipedia:

US Law: an infringement may occur where the defendant has made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported an infringing invention or its equivalent.

UK Law (where I am): infringement occurs ... by the making, disposing of, offering to dispose of, using, importing or keeping a patented product.

In both cases "making" counts as infringement, but IANAL, so those words may well have special meanings which I don't understand.

You've excised the first part of that line of 35 USC that says something to the effect of "not withstanding that set out elsewhere in this statute".

The UK SS60 does the same thing, "Subject to the provisions of this section" (SS60(1)) means that you have to read the whole part, even down to UKPA Section 60(5) which makes it clear that experiment and personal use are allowed (not withstanding bad caselaw to the contrary that someone may raise??).

http://translate.google.nl/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=h... sates most of Europe is different here.

I'm pretty sure you're not right about research use. Wikipedia states:

cisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.

'In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."'

The pertinent part of US statute is 35 USC 271(e)(1).

I wasn't fully cognisant of the Madey vs Duke decision but it does address the situation of attempting to hide commercial action behind a guise of scientific experiment. The "philosophical inquiry" (sic) surely covers experiment that is not motivated by commercial interests.

They've gone too far IMO, the German position appears to hold most closely to the purpose of the patent system where they are more liberal in allowing commercially motivated experiment (and rightly), how else can improvements and developments be made.

Merck vs Integra appears to reverse this to some extent but is specific to the area of FDA testing and is thus quite hard to apply generally IMO.

As far as the European/UK position most states appear to follow the once proposed but unimplemented CPC Art.27(b) and thus have statutory exemptions for research use.

In particular in the UK, Patents Act as amended, SS60(5) states that use of a patent is not infringing if:

(a) it's for personal use (b) it's done for experiment ...

See for example the MPP, www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-060.pdf. The 2006 Gowers Review gave as it's first recommendation that this section should be clarified to make it clear that research was an allowed, non-infringing, activity.