Board Policies

[sr1200]

Let me start off by saying this:  Im not trying to start trouble at all with this question, its simply for my own edification and so I wont (hopefully) do the wrong thing in the future.

Is there any policy or rule of thumb regarding posting schematics on the site (or linked to off site hosting) for units that are no longer in production?  If its a "no-no", would this have to do with if a patent and or copyright of some sort is still active, or is it just bad form in general?

 

[Rochey]

While your asking this kind of question - let me tack another on.

What about designs that you plan to release "commercially" -- but had _some_ support on from the forum?

 

[Ethan]

I can't speak for individual member-to-member ethos, but as far as this website is concerned...

Members are expected to post only what they believe, in good faith, is OK to post.  However, because of the nature of the internet, sometimes knowing whether something is OK to post becomes difficult to assess.  In the event the author/owner of the posted material comes forward and objects to or believes their copyright is being infringed upon, we will respect the owner's rights to have that material taken down, following procedures outlined in the DMCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

 

[JohnRoberts]

While your asking this kind of question - let me tack another on.

What about designs that you plan to release "commercially" -- but had _some_ support on from the forum?

;D ;D ;D  This sounds like a potential source of bad feelings, and people can have different opinions about what IP they own.

Lets carry this one step further. Suppose your commercial implementation becomes wildly successful and some forum members decide to copy it effectively taking revenue out of your pocket.

Legally, published circuitry is public domain, so nobody can stop you from using it. Likewise that public domain nature limits your ability to protect it, not that IP protection is all that useful (gives you the right to sue, not the means).

At a minimum you should probably put a copyright notice on the your PCB layouts to suggest your personal rights interest in that implementation of the public domain design. 

FWIW back in the day when I had a kit company, I literally published the PCB layouts in the magazine articles for all to use. That was part of the quid pro quo for the free magazine publicity.  I do not see such a business model as very viable these days, but what do I know?

JR

 

[mulletchuck]

Legally, published circuitry is public domain,

proof, please. 

 

[zebra50]

I think what John is referring to is the concept of 'prior art'.

So, if someone discusses a new idea / design / forum here on the forum, he/she is then not able to patent that design as it is already out in the public domain.

Copyright is a different thing.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think what John is referring to is the concept of 'prior art'.

So, if someone discusses a new idea / design / forum here on the forum, he/she is then not able to patent that design as it is already out in the public domain.

Copyright is a different thing.

Yes something like that...  I don't know if the current law has changed (there has been some changes to better agree with international patent laws recently) but in the US there used to be a time window of something like 1 year after public disclosure to file a patent officially, while priority before that must be proved with other documentation (like notebooks or disclosures).

IIRC international patents had no grace period to file after publication, so patents must be filed before showing. Note: showing a product at a trade show with patentable technology is considered the same as publication, so we used to have to file international patent paperwork before showing new products at trade shows. 

=====

Nobody in their right mind posts protectable circuits on the internet without already securing protection, if they have any hope or interest in commercial exploitation.

In the real world IP is collected into war chests for major companies to use in battle against other major companies, and a new trend with patent trolls who buy up IP as separate parties to extort manufacturers.  I am an strong advocate of the IP system and use of IP protection, but every year this becomes more of a game for the big dogs not individual inventors.

Regarding the value of designs developed with forum support, you get pretty much what you pay for...  or sometimes less.

JR

 

[sr1200]

Wow, this all brings up so many more questions than I intended... So if I read this correctly, if we discuss a new preamp design here, go through all the workings of it, values for components, topology etc... the person that originally came up with the design cannot patent it... makes sense why some folks here keep things hush hush until its unveiled.

 

[zebra50]

>So if I read this correctly, if we discuss a new preamp design here, go through all the workings of it, values for components, topology etc... the person that originally came up with the design cannot patent it

Yes, but very little of the stuff we discuss here is patentable anyway. Most of what we do here is simply rejigging or building on old ideas and designs.

You need significant novelty to patent an invention - or at least to successfully defend that patent. If an invention is deemed to be obvious to a 'man skilled in the art', then a patent will not stand. And you need deep pockets to file and defend a patent.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow, this all brings up so many more questions than I intended... So if I read this correctly, if we discuss a new preamp design here, go through all the workings of it, values for components, topology etc... the person that originally came up with the design cannot patent it... makes sense why some folks here keep things hush hush until its unveiled.

Depending on the time window anyone who saw the design could patent it , if they file first.

The unpleasant part comes when some collaborative effort accidentally becomes successful, and everybody who posted to the thread (or read it) thinks they are it's daddy.  This happens often enough without the internet and forums (trust me).

I hope my comments don't sound (too) arrogant, but these collaborative web forum efforts are not exactly high design.

Also for something to be patentable it needs to be both novel (as in not done before or obvious from prior art) and useful(?). These days the patent office seems pretty lax about testing either characteristic, as long as you pony up the filing fee. The novelty and obviousness is routinely tested in court if there is enough value in play. If the patent is useful or not gets tested by the marketplace, with the vast majority proving that they are not worth the filing fees.

JR

 

[MikeFFG]

Hi - I'm searching around for the legal implications on some things, and this thread was the closest to what I was looking for, though I'm a tad off topic.

My question was going to be about what the legal implications are for commercial clones. Like every company and their mother has cloned a Neve and API pre and EQ, so I assume these just aren't protected by patents. It's not as if companies are paying Neve and API royalties or something, right?

But every now and again I see on the forum people talking in almost code...like about the API Th***T circuit on the compressor...as if that is a buzz word. Is that a patented idea?

Does it basically come down to anything that isn't strictly patented is fair game? And I suppose most patented things usually say 'our patented circuitry' somewhere in the description, and the US patent offices are public records if I remember correctly?

Sorry if this is all common knowledge. My copyright knowledge is extensive, but only in regards to music!

Thanks for any info you can give me.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hi - I'm searching around for the legal implications on some things, and this thread was the closest to what I was looking for, though I'm a tad off topic.

My question was going to be about what the legal implications are for commercial clones. Like every company and their mother has cloned a Neve and API pre and EQ, so I assume these just aren't protected by patents. It's not as if companies are paying Neve and API royalties or something, right?

The basic principle in all tort actions, are there property rights, and has there been injury to the rightful property owner?

Patented art, is free to use after that patent exclusive use period expires.

Copyrights last longer. Trade names and the like can also be protected.

But every now and again I see on the forum people talking in almost code...like about the API Th***T circuit on the compressor...as if that is a buzz word. Is that a patented idea?

Many people on the internet are also afraid to use their real names... maybe they are afraid of drawing attention to search engines. Or they just think it's cool. No telling.

Does it basically come down to anything that isn't strictly patented is fair game? And I suppose most patented things usually say 'our patented circuitry' somewhere in the description, and the US patent offices are public records if I remember correctly?

No...  It is fraud to misrepresent your work effort, to be somebody else's. So You could make "Mike's version" of an unprotected product, while it is not Kosher to make a counterfeit pretending to be the original.

Sorry if this is all common knowledge. My copyright knowledge is extensive, but only in regards to music!

IP law is more similar than different, but is evolving. In US it is now first to file, not first to invent, so hypothetically you could be prevented from using your own invention if somebody else files first. Don't know what current rules are regarding publication and when a published circuit becomes public domain, but my recollection from international patent law is that no publication is allowed before filing.

AFAIK selling a product is considered the same as publication. I recall once having to make one of a product and ship it to a dealer, to perfect commercial use of a copyrighted name in trade. 

Thanks for any info you can give me.

If you are considering a commercial effort, consider paying a lawyer for real advice.

JR

 

[MikeFFG]

Thanks - I'm not really looking to do anything commercial any time soon...but was thinking perhaps in the very distant future! And I was also just curious.

Your info is very much appreciated!