Copyright

[WaspAir]

Here you go, Dennis, in your own words as you wrote them, without putting anything in your mouth, not making anything up but quoting you, and in precisely the context in which you said it:

The Mini-500s design and technology is the property of Mr. Dennis Fetters, and is copyright protected and the name may not be changed or its parts duplicated, and no one has permission to do so for profit.

And my response is that you don't have any remaining "property" in that "technology" with an expired patent, that its design is not copyright protected because it legally cannot be, that anybody is free to use a different name, that the public is free to duplicate parts as they see fit, and that the public does not need your permission to do so for profit.

Sure looks like a straightforward point-for-point disagreement to me.

 

[PTKay]

... But if somebody can figure out a way to make an equivalent product with lathes and milling machines, or if somebody finds a different way to cast it, or if somebody comes up with your own method through experimentation (not through stealing data from your plant) you can't stop that.

Thank you very much, WaspAir, for clear and straight explanation.

This is also how I always understood it.

 

[Gyro_Kai]

But again, it is all down to contracts. If I emply an engineering and manufacturing company to design and manufacture something according to, or even exceeding my specifications, I can tie the company in, so that they have no right to market it on their own, right? Even if they use different tools or use a different manufacturing company.

Kai.

 

[RotorTom]

Contract protection is simply an agreement between two or more parties. So one party can bind another NOT to engage in specific activity. But that "binding" must be considered "reasonable" by the courts if it is ever challenged.

I am sure Waspair can weigh in on specifics.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

This is a fantastic thread! I've never seen such clear and easy to understand explanations of the different patent/copyright protections out there.

 

[WaspAir]

But again, it is all down to contracts. If I emply an engineering and manufacturing company to design and manufacture something according to, or even exceeding my specifications, I can tie the company in, so that they have no right to market it on their own, right? Even if they use different tools or use a different manufacturing company.

Contract protection is simply an agreement between two or more parties. So one party can bind another NOT to engage in specific activity. But that "binding" must be considered "reasonable" by the courts if it is ever challenged.

You can indeed voluntarily take on all sorts of restrictions on your own rights through a contract. For that reason, a wise business person who is being hired to make something for you may insist on including clauses in the contract so that complying with it will neither:
(1) forbid him from doing things he had already been doing or was legally able to do before your deal was reached, nor
(2) put him in a worse position than anybody else out there, by forbidding him from later doing something that total strangers will legally be able to do.

It's often prudent to include language to the effect that there is no obligation with respect to purportedly confidential information or technology that (a) was already known to you before you entered into the contract as evidenced by pre-existing documents, (b) becomes public knowledge through no action or inaction of your own, (c) is legally disclosed to you by a third party, (d) is disclosed by the other party to one of your competitors without restrictions, etc., etc.

 

[PTKay]

I assume, that by contract, we can also understand a contract of a joint venture.
Not always is there a contractor vs. subcontractor relation,
it can be a partnership.

If no specific provisions were made in partnership contract,
and no patents or "industrial design" exist, then the partners
can do at their will, when they split, no other legal rights apply.
Do I get it right?

 

[Rotor Rooter]

Editorial today on the US Patent System

Editorial today on the US Patent System

The following article may be of interest to some;

'Inovation Nation At War' ` The New York Times

"America’s patent system is a mess. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, understaffed and overwhelmed, issues too many needless patents. Patent trolls buy or create patent portfolios whose only purpose is to extort fees from the companies that actually make the things that the patents supposedly cover. Technology companies sue competitors for billions for infringing patents that are nothing short of silly ......."


Dave