Ok I don't know much about patent laws, but I always thought if just 1 thing was differant,then it did not violate it.
seems to me if every company went after people like you are talking about doing,we would all still be rideing horse and buggys.
Good way to keep friends. going after the companys that sold it are one thing but when you go after a buyer, to me that is wrong. and I just lost all respect for you.
sorry but law suit happy people and lawyers are what has ruined general avaition. ( note not meaning you but law suit happy people in general )
I mean I am sorry, but anything that make an aircraft easyer and safer to fly should be a good thing to share. just like the offset gimble head bensen Designed. did you have to pay bensen for the use of his design? just wondering where we would be if everyone thought like you on this.
Well, I'm really sorry you have lost respect for me. I don't think you really mean it, once you think it through. In fact, if it were not for the teeth in our patent system, we would still be riding horse and buggy's. I mean, why would an inventor go to all the time, trouble and expense to create something if someone could download the patent and use it as a blueprint, change one thing and reap the profits? Where is the protection in that? Hell, better not to have a patent office, so at least the thief would have to go to some trouble to steel the design.
I know that you know how it feels to have been cheated and stolen from. You want to be reimbursed, and you know there is no one to go after for your loss. I even tried to help you, but the people involved in your problem just don't have any tangible property to obtain if you did win a lawsuit.
In my case, that is not true. I was robbed, just as you. The fact is, that after I go after the Canadian company that started robbing me, and it gets out into the world news that people buying this aircraft could be sued as well, unfortunately Mosquito will most likely go out of business, and by the time I get my judgment transfered to Canada, all the assets and Mr. Uptigrove will be long gone.
But, in patent and copyright law, the persons purchasing the illegal item is also responsible. One of our founding principles of our Justice system is; Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So yes, a person buying a fake bag, a ripped song, a pirated DVD move, and yes, a helicopter with a ripped-off patented control system is responsible for the owners loss, as well as the thief, if they knew it or not.
So that being said, the only resource of reimbursement from the theft will be the buyers of the illegal product through their insurance, or lean on their home, or taking their savings..... so on. No its not pretty, but that's how the blood-sucking attorneys operate, and that is the teeth the law puts in it to protect the rights of the inventors.
Sure, Mr. Uptigrove knew what he was steeling, but did he warn his buyers that they may be in danger by purchasing this product? You bet your life he didn't. Did he try and work out a fair commission to pay me for the rights to use my patented control system? No, but he could have, and still can for that matter. Will he, and save his business and problems for his customers? Probably not.
What about the Mosquito owners contacting Mr. Uptigrove and telling him to make it right with me so that they don't have to pay for his theft? Do you think he will, or just take the money and run, leaving them holding the bag? That's yet to be seen, but its the best way to end this problem, and I hope thats what will happen.
We fairly warned Mr. Uptigrove that he would be in violation of our patent, he ignored the warning, and failed to warn his customers that they would, probably unknowingly, be part of the crime. If someone buys stolen property, they are not reimbursed when the law retrieves it, and in fact, if they can't deliver the stolen property back, they have to pay the value for it.
If Mr. Uptigrove thought he designed the control system sufficiently different or improved on the concept, then why didn't he have it patented? Because he probably knew it would not be approved due to it violating existing patents.
A person is responsible for their actions, even if they didn't know the details. Where is the different in my case, and why would the law not be available to me as it is available to you or anyone else, if you choose to use it?
By the way, I obtained permission from Dr. Bensen to use the off-set Gimbel head, just as I obtained permission from Frank Robinson to use the "T-stick" design in my Voyager-500 helicopter.
I hope to regain your respect.