johnheath said:
Hi all...
Every now and then I read about DIY clones
Historically all circuit designers stand on the shoulders of engineers that went before us. It is possible to design in a complete vacuum but you end up repeating all the old mistakes.
rip-offs suggests attempting to copy someone else's intellectual property without compensating them for that so tantamount to theft.
versus patents and what not.
Patents are a form of legal protection for a few classes of IP (intellectual property). "Utility" patents can protect novel circuitry (or sundry functional means) combined together in a new way to deliver some new (and useful) function. (I received 9 utility patents over the years).
Another class of patents is "design" patents that cover the look and shape of a physical embodiment. Things like the shape of a coke bottle have design patents, trade dress (like colors and layout) of successful handheld meters and even mixers "can" be covered by design patents,but they rarely are.
Copyrights and trademarks can protect brands, written material, and even music, but different rules and restrictions than patents.
I wonder about your opinions on this? Where are the moral and/or the legal limitations?
Yes, even when it can't be proved illegal, it can be morally wrong... but some major businesses owe their success and size to copying others IP over the decades and successfully defending themselves from lawsuits in court. (Peavey sued a copycat over one of my patents and didn't win the case in court.)
Personally I know that here in Sweden there is a rule about old circuit patents that no longer applies and therefore it is vaguely free to copy as long as you do not call the product by the same name... like old tube circuits. I believe this applies after 50 years.
US Patents expire sooner than 50 years (more like 20). I just abandoned maintenance payments for my #9 so it is now in the public domain and free to copy. I have widely shared my patented peak/VU meter technology that is now free to copy. In fact that is basis for the entire patent system, the inventor teaches the world how (s)he accomplished some invention in return for exclusive use for a finite period. The world benefits from the knowledge immediately and after the exclusive period expires the rest of the world can can hit the ground running. Even before that the rest of the world can work on improvements.
I designed a product while at Peavey (automatic mixer) that was near the end of a dominant patent's life (Dugan). I delayed the release of Peavey's version less than a year so I could use the superior technology about to become public domain. Most of the other competition used inferior approaches to get around that very elegant patent. I didn't have to. FWIW I also won a patent for an improvement I made to the original automatic mixer design.
But I guess there also is a moral limit to it all?
Thoughts?
Best regards
/John
When in doubt do what is right.... (not just legal but right).
FWIW before I designed my automatic mixer for peavey, I approached The original inventor in his small booth at a trade show and asked him if he had some other IP that would help me justify licensing his technology, and Peavey paying him a royalty to use it (but it's hard to justify paying a royalty for an expired patent). He arrogantly told me that he was the only one in the industry who could design an automatic mixers that didn't suck (not an exact quote but something like that)... probably the wrong thing to say to me. :
I was trying to help him get paid at least something for his career work (I would have loved to use his name in marketing) but his attitude pretty much precluded that. I started out with an uphill battle to pay him anything (my bosses were cheaper than me).
JR
PS: The sad thing about patents is they mainly give you the right to sue. Such lawsuits can cost millions of dollars and you do not automatically win, even when right (I know).
