Under UK law copyright infringement might have taken place. Remember, we use copyright in some places where the US uses patent as IP protection.
Even if you had a patent, whether it will stand in a dispute is another issue. The reviewers generally do not have sufficient knowledge to determine what is valid. The patent writers make wording overly complicated so once you get into a dispute, you are into lots of legal fees just trying to justify what exactly is relevant.
If the exact layout is duplicated, yes, you can use copyright.
An idea cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation format of the idea can.
Patents are useless if you are a little guy. Big companies will steal a good idea and violate the patents, keeping the whole thing tied up in the courts until the little guy runs out of money to defend it.
The Apple vs Android smartphones is a good read on how absurd patents can be. From what I can tell, Apple is almost trying to argue they patented a rounded corner flat panel phone, and no one else can use that idea.
They will beat up everyone using Google's OS for a long time in courts, as they can't really as easily sue Google themselves, and Google has more free cash than the companies making the phones. In this business, the guy with the most $ to blow on legal defense wins.
I am not sure what the details are, but the solution is with the side who knows the true nature of a patent. I had a bad experience when my patent attorney sent out a response to a reviewer without my acknowledgement. From that point on, my baseline to them was "never quote other documents!". Normal attorneys will try to quote other documents that they feel are to their advantage without full understanding of the context in the quoted document which can cause as much trouble as benefit. The attorneys are the ones that get money for making the situation complicated. I find that if you have the right people that know what they are doing, things can be handled quite effectively. But the right person needs both legal and technical sense. These people are hard to find.
Yes. A circuit diagram is covered by copyright. A redrafted or hand-drawn copy is a copyright infringement, even if it incorporates modifications. Under UK law copyright protection starts from the moment a work exists, there is no need for registration or copyright statements (although these can be useful evidence if authorship is disputed). However, as others have said, this protection may be theoretical rather than useful unless the author has deep pockets.soongsc said:
Even if you are expressing an idea and not saying that it's a schematic for a specific product? I sure would like to see a real case ruling.
Yes. The simple fact that it is a 'work' is enough to give it full copyright protection. This posting is probably covered by UK copyright law! Nothing whatsoever to do with products. I produce a 'work' (book, essay, music, diagram, recipe, shopping list) and I, or my employer, automatically own the copyright unless I have assigned it to someone else.
I believe that U.S. copyright law is very similar. Registration is only required for damage-collection court actions to proceed, I think.
Heh, shopping list. I would still love to see a true case ruling. If it can't stand in court, then it means nothing. For example, two people generate the same shopping list. So, does this mean one person copied another? Both persons cannot have rights at the same time on the list of same contents? Lawyers make money doing talk like that by billing you by the minute. Make your brains into noodles first...
Maybe posting it here so it was date-stamped would help. Maybe the earlier one would triumph, in that case.
Two identical works produced quite independently would not be a problem, provided that it is reasonable that such a thing could occur. Each author would have copyright over his own work. The complication would be proving which copyright has been violated if a third copy turns up.
Avoiding this problem is one reason why some software companies use 'clean room' techniques, so that they can show that their design (even if identical to someone else's design) was not a copy.
Avoiding this problem is one reason why some software companies use 'clean room' techniques, so that they can show that their design (even if identical to someone else's design) was not a copy.
There is not such thing as "clean room" techniques simply due to the education process. Nobody can be isolated from the world and still be technically competent. So if a third person somewhere else in the world had the same shopping list would be considered copying? Does not make sense.
Of course 'clean rooms' exist. Let's say I want to write a clean scheduler for a new OS. I find a good algorithm from a textbook, then write code to implement it. Provided I have never studied other schedulers using the same algorithm my code is new and not a copy, even if it turns out to be identical to some existing code.
If someone else had the same shopping list it could be considered copying, if they had seen my list first. If they have not, then it can't be a copy. Remember, it is the act of copying which copyright protects. Independently arriving at the same point is not a copyright infringement; this is where it differs from patents.
It all makes perfect sense. It may be unfamiliar to people who have never thought about IP protection, or come from legal systems which do things differently.
If someone else had the same shopping list it could be considered copying, if they had seen my list first. If they have not, then it can't be a copy. Remember, it is the act of copying which copyright protects. Independently arriving at the same point is not a copyright infringement; this is where it differs from patents.
It all makes perfect sense. It may be unfamiliar to people who have never thought about IP protection, or come from legal systems which do things differently.
I did not read the entire thread, but when I read the first post, I was immediately struck with an idea:
A typical wiper 'pot' sounds rather poor, particularly in low gain circuits. Lots of fancy stepped attenuators etc. have come along to address this, but the wiper in the signal path is a bad idea.
So, my idea is to completley isolate the sinal path from the volume control path, using the LDR. A well regulated supply powers an incandescent lamp with DC. This lamp fires at the LDR which varies resistance with the light intensity, and therefore controls the volume, with no connection electronically between the 'pot' and the signal.
Now, it is quite possible the LDR could sound 'worse' than a good wiper pot; however if not, this could give infinately variable volume control (rather than fixed steps) with no wiper in the signal path, and is fairly simple to impliment, perhaps even retrofit to existing equipment.
Possibly a crap idea, and I have no intention to build it, but thought I'd pass along this inspiration in case someone else could benefit from it...
A typical wiper 'pot' sounds rather poor, particularly in low gain circuits. Lots of fancy stepped attenuators etc. have come along to address this, but the wiper in the signal path is a bad idea.
So, my idea is to completley isolate the sinal path from the volume control path, using the LDR. A well regulated supply powers an incandescent lamp with DC. This lamp fires at the LDR which varies resistance with the light intensity, and therefore controls the volume, with no connection electronically between the 'pot' and the signal.
Now, it is quite possible the LDR could sound 'worse' than a good wiper pot; however if not, this could give infinately variable volume control (rather than fixed steps) with no wiper in the signal path, and is fairly simple to impliment, perhaps even retrofit to existing equipment.
Possibly a crap idea, and I have no intention to build it, but thought I'd pass along this inspiration in case someone else could benefit from it...
it's been done before.
And it's been improved on in the past.
Now we all know about this form a varying attenuation using LDRs. You are probably 80years too late with your idea.
And it's been improved on in the past.
Now we all know about this form a varying attenuation using LDRs. You are probably 80years too late with your idea.
I wonder why it is not done then? Stepped attenuators and good old fashioned pots seem to prevail, even in high-end stuff...
I've never seen an implimentation of my idea in any piece of audio equipment (but I clearly have not seen them all!)
I've never seen an implimentation of my idea in any piece of audio equipment (but I clearly have not seen them all!)
Because they work reliably in a competent design, have higher performance, and are simpler to implement. LDR volume controls seem to be a solution to a nonexistent problem that brings higher cost/complication and lower performance to the table. The LDR seems to be more of a fashion statement.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.