Except he's entirely wrong if he's talking about the US.
The only thing you don't need a license for is for purely speculative work, generally interpreted as nothing more than idle curiosity. Even research (such as trying to build a new invention out of an old one) is technically patent infringement unless you have a license.
Here's the actual law:
Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USCS Sects. 1 et seq.], whoever without
authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
If you want confirmation, ask Duke University. It tried to argue that non-commercial research use should be protected in the case Madey v. Duke University. It lost. The Federal Circuit (the court that deals with patent appeals) held that research use is still use of the invention and still violates the law.
http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.asp...
Here's another good summary of the Duke case:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied an "experimental use defense"
in a patent infringement lawsuit against Duke University, signaling that academic
researchers may be liable for use of patented equipment and processes even without
use for commercial purposes. The court declared that the noncommercial character
of the research in Madey v. Duke University was irrelevant. What matters is whether
the research "is in keeping with the alleged infringer's legitimate business,
regardless of commercial implications." In the case of a university, noncommercial
research is "legitimate business," subject to the patent laws.
In real life, nobody ever sues over individual non-commercial use. First, the company is unlikely to ever know. Second, it's just not worth the hassle--suing costs tens of thousands of dollars and they'd recover far less.
The law is on the books, but I wouldn't stress too much if you replicated a patented invention in your basement.
Regulators will probably respond by extending patents to non-commercial use. After all, if the desktop replicator becomes reality and really manufactures everything, the only asset corporations retain is IP.
Total replacement of manufacturing in the near and medium term is _very_ unlikely, because of the efficiency gains of high volume manufacturing. Things like casting require much less energy per unit of output when you can use a high thermal efficiency furnace for example.
In the long term this won't change, however there might be something that changes to make a surplus of energy a reality so the efficiency drop won't matter.
I dunno, that sounds a little like "electric light bulbs will be nothing more than a novelty item for the rich, they are just not practical for everyday use".
Put another way; There are economies of scale for mass production, but $120/bbl oil to truck those things to people might just make those advantages disappear.
Long term, a large nuclear fusion power infrastructure plus 3D printers might make this a reality.
Also, as someone pointed out above, the central point of this article is incorrect. Manufacturing patented items for non-commercial use is illegal. So you would still expect to see lawsuits regarding illegal copying similar to the current RIAA suits.
Now, if the manufacturing of items becomes a trivial process, one could envision a "dark age" due to the lack of incentive to produce new goods.
The only thing you don't need a license for is for purely speculative work, generally interpreted as nothing more than idle curiosity. Even research (such as trying to build a new invention out of an old one) is technically patent infringement unless you have a license.
Here's the actual law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.htmlIt says nothing about noncommercial use.
If you want confirmation, ask Duke University. It tried to argue that non-commercial research use should be protected in the case Madey v. Duke University. It lost. The Federal Circuit (the court that deals with patent appeals) held that research use is still use of the invention and still violates the law. http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.asp...
Here's another good summary of the Duke case:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1018?...