Patents vs "rip-offs" vs clones etc

[johnheath]

Hi all...

Every now and then I read about DIY clones and "rip-offs" versus patents and what not.

I wonder about your opinons on this? Where are the moral and/or the legal limitations?

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.

But I guess there also is a moral limit to it all?


Thoughts?

Best regards

/John

 

[JohnRoberts]

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.

and "rip-offs"

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). 

 

[johnheath]

Thank you sir

Yes, I guess we all are developing older inventions and in this case circuits and that we maybe sometimes come too close , in time and design, to the old?

But when does a product become a rip-off?

Best regards

/John

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thank you sir

Yes, I guess we all are developing older inventions and in this case circuits and that we maybe sometimes come too close , in time and design, to the old?

But when does a product become a rip-off?

One obvious example is when a copy tries to capitalize on the good-will of some other company/designer, by creating confusion that the new version is somehow like or related to the original..

There are many tube EQ that are derivative of early Western Electric designs, and some more successful copies are copied themselves. While hard for a copied copier to complain too loudly.

Just look at the court record for many cases that ended up there (many injured parties were unsuccessful getting recourse, while a few did).

Lots of classic IP is now public domain so free to use.

JR

Best regards

/John

 

[kambo]

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). 

i had a meeting with my patent lawyer again last week, he said
"you dont wanna get a patent to sue people, your patent will add value to your business when you sell it"

 

[JohnRoberts]

i had a meeting with my patent lawyer again last week, he said
"you dont wanna get a patent to sue people, your patent will add value to your business when you sell it"

And it will add to his bank account right now.  : (I've known some patent lawyers who were that mercenary. One didn't even want to do a patent search in case we might find something that would preclude getting a patent and his payday . :  I did the search myself. )

Patents are a deep pockets game so yes it will have more value to a large company, and could help a large company defend against competition from another large company, but as I've already shared you don't always win in court (even with Peavey deep pockets).  Patents are also used by large companies to threaten small companies. My long term plan was to license my drum tuner technology to a big dog where the patent would be useful. That didn't happen, but I was not a very aggressive salesman. 

I don't want to discourage you but would advise paying extra attention to the claims writing in your patent.  The claims are where the rubber meets the road in court.  I wrote most of my last patent myself, only paying a big bux patent lawyer to write the claims section.

In hindsight the Peavey patent where we failed to shut down a copycat, could have benefitted from better claims writing, but neither I nor the lawyer expected it to end up in court, or realized how valuable the invention would turn out.  That lawyer probably grunted out several peavey patents a year and most are just expensive wall paper for Peavey to put in their war chest and brag about 

There is a well known dance to get a patent approved by a wet behind the ears patent examiner (put in extra claims for him to deny so he will feel like he is smart and did hid job), but that does not insure getting a strong patent you can defend in court later.

So spend some extra time thinking about how you would try to get around your own patent and close those doors with as broad claims as you can get through the PTO. Broad claims are harder to win but worth trying, because narrow (specific) claims can be worked around more easily. 

Good luck.. sorry if I sound like a negative nellie, just my life experience talking.

JR

 

[pucho812]

The thing with  patents is protection and enforcement if it is worth time. For example  my clients, neighbor has a patent on a gesture. I kid you not.  The dude invented the way we use our fingers to zoom in when looking at an iphone and other devices that have a touch screen.  He has the patent for it, but has never enforced when others used  it because it's not worth the time. The guy also has over 150 patents to his name, no sure what else he has that he does not enforce.

 

[kambo]

not really interested in who wins in court...
even if you win, you dont automatically get money raining from the sky....
depends on the case, you may not even break it even vs your expense for the case...

all i am interested is selling the business for more $$$
the way i c it is: paying money to patent lawyer is part of the investment...