SY said:
Bad moderator, supposed to be serious
Me? I never had complaints, either. (Except for the size of my speakers, back then😀 )
🙂
the law
A lot of very smart and well educated people misunderstand intellectual property law. Scott Wurcer has it right.
- Copyright does not protect any of the useful aspects of your DIY design. It protects the expression of the design- your schematic or pcb layout from being actually copied. Copyright does not extend to the useful ideas contained in your work, such ideas have no protection. For example, when CarlosFM publishes his schematic on snubbers/ regulators, copyright provides no protection to prevent others from using the snubbers or regulators in the exact same way. In fact, there is a "utility" test in copyright law that excludes useful features from copyright protection. Copyright is supposed to protect art- drawings, books, shapes, not anything useful.
And copyright is subject to fair use exception for noncommercial uses.
Think about it- copyright attaches automatically upon publication to every published work. No examination by any agency. No testing to see if its new or useful. You therefore get protection only to prevent others from physcially (or electronically) copying the exact thing that you published, meaning the words and images. And if the words and images contain useful information, those words and images don't get very much protection. In any event, the ideas which are contained and described by the words and images have absolutely no protection.
For these reaons you can see that this thinking is absolutlely wrong-
There was a movement years ago to establish a new 'right of authorship' that would require identification of the author originating the concepts that you are now discussing if the author insisted. This went nowhere. Of course if you live in France, copyright is king, droit morale, and you have all kinds of rights....but I digress...
- Patent is designed to protect your new and useful inventions. But these are expensive, take time, and if you are not in the USA you forefit your patent if you publish on the internet before filing your patent application. Government steps in to at least give a cursory review that the thing is new and not obvious before giving you the patent.
There is no fair use exception to patent, and no knowledge of patent is required to infringe- if you do the patent in the country that the patent issued in you infringe.
There is kind of an exception for scholarly study, which is rarely used or even cited to. In USA you can build a patented circuit to see if it works and how good it is, for noncommercial purposes.
A patent right is an exchange for your awesome idea being published for all to see, so some study and verification is at least in theory permitted. And if your idea turns out not to be new, the patent is not valid because why would you get a monopoly for something that has already been done?
This is also wrong if it is applid to copyright-
Here concepts of copyright, which requires no novelty or originiality, are being mixed up with patent, which has these requirements.
Remember that the goal of IP law, at least in the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of the Constitution, is that society benefits by free disclosure, so nothing is protected...unless the requirements for copyright/patent are met. TM too. Rights in patent and copyright are only given to encourage authors and inventors to disclose their ideas to the public. So the law is stingy and operates on an incentive theory. If you published an invention on diyaudio.com but did not file for a patent, the law is happy with you. You benefited society by disclosing your ideas, but society did not have to give you any patent rights back. Not even a tax break!
This is why reverse engineering is not only legal, it is encouraged by the law. If a company is keeping a circuit in its preamp secret, society is better off if you break through the epoxy and figure it out and disclose it or start using it. The company could have disclosed the idea by filing for a patent, but it chose to deprive the public of its good idea and so we give an incentive to figure out how the thing works in order to benefit the public.
I don't mean to suggest that these are not important issues, but I want to clarify a few misconceptions that appear quite frequently.
A lot of very smart and well educated people misunderstand intellectual property law. Scott Wurcer has it right.
- Copyright does not protect any of the useful aspects of your DIY design. It protects the expression of the design- your schematic or pcb layout from being actually copied. Copyright does not extend to the useful ideas contained in your work, such ideas have no protection. For example, when CarlosFM publishes his schematic on snubbers/ regulators, copyright provides no protection to prevent others from using the snubbers or regulators in the exact same way. In fact, there is a "utility" test in copyright law that excludes useful features from copyright protection. Copyright is supposed to protect art- drawings, books, shapes, not anything useful.
And copyright is subject to fair use exception for noncommercial uses.
Think about it- copyright attaches automatically upon publication to every published work. No examination by any agency. No testing to see if its new or useful. You therefore get protection only to prevent others from physcially (or electronically) copying the exact thing that you published, meaning the words and images. And if the words and images contain useful information, those words and images don't get very much protection. In any event, the ideas which are contained and described by the words and images have absolutely no protection.
For these reaons you can see that this thinking is absolutlely wrong-
There was a movement years ago to establish a new 'right of authorship' that would require identification of the author originating the concepts that you are now discussing if the author insisted. This went nowhere. Of course if you live in France, copyright is king, droit morale, and you have all kinds of rights....but I digress...
- Patent is designed to protect your new and useful inventions. But these are expensive, take time, and if you are not in the USA you forefit your patent if you publish on the internet before filing your patent application. Government steps in to at least give a cursory review that the thing is new and not obvious before giving you the patent.
There is no fair use exception to patent, and no knowledge of patent is required to infringe- if you do the patent in the country that the patent issued in you infringe.
There is kind of an exception for scholarly study, which is rarely used or even cited to. In USA you can build a patented circuit to see if it works and how good it is, for noncommercial purposes.
A patent right is an exchange for your awesome idea being published for all to see, so some study and verification is at least in theory permitted. And if your idea turns out not to be new, the patent is not valid because why would you get a monopoly for something that has already been done?
This is also wrong if it is applid to copyright-
Here concepts of copyright, which requires no novelty or originiality, are being mixed up with patent, which has these requirements.
Remember that the goal of IP law, at least in the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of the Constitution, is that society benefits by free disclosure, so nothing is protected...unless the requirements for copyright/patent are met. TM too. Rights in patent and copyright are only given to encourage authors and inventors to disclose their ideas to the public. So the law is stingy and operates on an incentive theory. If you published an invention on diyaudio.com but did not file for a patent, the law is happy with you. You benefited society by disclosing your ideas, but society did not have to give you any patent rights back. Not even a tax break!
This is why reverse engineering is not only legal, it is encouraged by the law. If a company is keeping a circuit in its preamp secret, society is better off if you break through the epoxy and figure it out and disclose it or start using it. The company could have disclosed the idea by filing for a patent, but it chose to deprive the public of its good idea and so we give an incentive to figure out how the thing works in order to benefit the public.
I don't mean to suggest that these are not important issues, but I want to clarify a few misconceptions that appear quite frequently.
Re: the law
And even this is barely true anymore as a truly non-commercial user generally can't afford to defend himself against suit, though if you are really non-commercial nobody is likely to sue you I suppose.
But, perhaps the more important point is that even if you were to have copyright in your work, the cost of a law suit is way higher than the value of your snubbers.
lgreen said:
And even this is barely true anymore as a truly non-commercial user generally can't afford to defend himself against suit, though if you are really non-commercial nobody is likely to sue you I suppose.
But, perhaps the more important point is that even if you were to have copyright in your work, the cost of a law suit is way higher than the value of your snubbers.
Re: the law
For these reaons you can see that this thinking is absolutlely wrong-
You are right. I meant only IP law (improper translation). In Ukraine patent law is a part of IP law.
A patent right is an exchange for your awesome idea being published for all to see, so some study and verification is at least in theory permitted. And if your idea turns out not to be new, the patent is not valid because why would you get a monopoly for something that has already been done?
Absolutely right!
Here concepts of copyright, which requires no novelty or originiality, are being mixed up with patent, which has these requirements.
However, for that statement of yours you are wrong. Novelty, basis of invention level and industrial usage are conditions which defines a patentability of inventions, according to all international treaties about patent law (Paris Convention, Eurasian Convention and Convention about unification of some provisions of patent law).
Remember that the goal of IP law, at least in the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of the Constitution, is that society benefits by free disclosure, so nothing is protected...unless the requirements for copyright/patent are met. TM too. Rights in patent and copyright are only given to encourage authors and inventors to disclose their ideas to the public. So the law is stingy and operates on an incentive theory. If you published an invention on diyaudio.com but did not file for a patent, the law is happy with you. You benefited society by disclosing your ideas, but society did not have to give you any patent rights back. Not even a tax break!
As for that statement I have to disagree with you completely. At least out of US, if this is in mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of US Constitution. The most benefits of all by free disclosure of inventions (in the meaning that the inventor has no patent protection) will have only devious manufacturers to make billions of profit, if it will be possible, depending on the kind of invention, but not society and inventor himself in the meaning of every single person which will supposed to be a buyer of such potential invention products.
If I’ll publish my invention on diyaudio.com but not file for a patent, the law is nothing to do to protect my work, which may be used to obtain a profit or may be stolen by other persons and file for a patent. It’s ridicules, but all of these can be done without violation of any law – this is completely lawful. And as I already said, real benefits by disclosing my ideas on the web will have only manufacturers.
As an example is an invention of Radio with its inventor O. Popov, but patent have filed Gulyelmo Markoni.
The company could have disclosed the idea by filing for a patent, but it chose to deprive the public of its good idea and so we give an incentive to figure out how the thing works in order to benefit the public.
Filing for a patent will not deprive the public of good idea of the invention. As you already said it is a disclosure, so the information about invention, its application is fully accessible and any person can figure out how the thing works. But use, sell, manufacture it and get a profit you can only with permission of a patent owner.
I can’t find a meaning of “reverse engineering”. Can you explain me what is it? BTW, you give a very good and extended post. Thanks for reply.
As for my solid belief, all patent law is designed to fill the industrial requirements only, so inventors can file for a patent exclusively if their inventions are supposed to be used in industrial, thus commercial area which reckon for get a profit from it.
All this seems like some kind of discrimination to DIY world. I guess every DIYer know what I am talking about. Well, all inventions which are not supposed to get a profit are deprived a legal protection, in contrast with copyright law.
By the same token, there can be a couple or even more patents within countries in the world for only one single invention, therefore – couple of patent rights owners which is proves that patent law is directed only for obtaining a profit.
With aim of protection interests of DIYers, I think that the patent law must be changed. Likewise DIYers have not be obliged to pay tax while filing for a patent, when their inventions are not subjected for commercial use, but only for personal use, thus – DIY use.
For these reaons you can see that this thinking is absolutlely wrong-
You are right. I meant only IP law (improper translation). In Ukraine patent law is a part of IP law.
A patent right is an exchange for your awesome idea being published for all to see, so some study and verification is at least in theory permitted. And if your idea turns out not to be new, the patent is not valid because why would you get a monopoly for something that has already been done?
Absolutely right!
Here concepts of copyright, which requires no novelty or originiality, are being mixed up with patent, which has these requirements.
However, for that statement of yours you are wrong. Novelty, basis of invention level and industrial usage are conditions which defines a patentability of inventions, according to all international treaties about patent law (Paris Convention, Eurasian Convention and Convention about unification of some provisions of patent law).
Remember that the goal of IP law, at least in the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of the Constitution, is that society benefits by free disclosure, so nothing is protected...unless the requirements for copyright/patent are met. TM too. Rights in patent and copyright are only given to encourage authors and inventors to disclose their ideas to the public. So the law is stingy and operates on an incentive theory. If you published an invention on diyaudio.com but did not file for a patent, the law is happy with you. You benefited society by disclosing your ideas, but society did not have to give you any patent rights back. Not even a tax break!
As for that statement I have to disagree with you completely. At least out of US, if this is in mind of the U.S. Supreme Court and Art. I of US Constitution. The most benefits of all by free disclosure of inventions (in the meaning that the inventor has no patent protection) will have only devious manufacturers to make billions of profit, if it will be possible, depending on the kind of invention, but not society and inventor himself in the meaning of every single person which will supposed to be a buyer of such potential invention products.
If I’ll publish my invention on diyaudio.com but not file for a patent, the law is nothing to do to protect my work, which may be used to obtain a profit or may be stolen by other persons and file for a patent. It’s ridicules, but all of these can be done without violation of any law – this is completely lawful. And as I already said, real benefits by disclosing my ideas on the web will have only manufacturers.
As an example is an invention of Radio with its inventor O. Popov, but patent have filed Gulyelmo Markoni.
The company could have disclosed the idea by filing for a patent, but it chose to deprive the public of its good idea and so we give an incentive to figure out how the thing works in order to benefit the public.
Filing for a patent will not deprive the public of good idea of the invention. As you already said it is a disclosure, so the information about invention, its application is fully accessible and any person can figure out how the thing works. But use, sell, manufacture it and get a profit you can only with permission of a patent owner.
I can’t find a meaning of “reverse engineering”. Can you explain me what is it? BTW, you give a very good and extended post. Thanks for reply.
As for my solid belief, all patent law is designed to fill the industrial requirements only, so inventors can file for a patent exclusively if their inventions are supposed to be used in industrial, thus commercial area which reckon for get a profit from it.
All this seems like some kind of discrimination to DIY world. I guess every DIYer know what I am talking about. Well, all inventions which are not supposed to get a profit are deprived a legal protection, in contrast with copyright law.
By the same token, there can be a couple or even more patents within countries in the world for only one single invention, therefore – couple of patent rights owners which is proves that patent law is directed only for obtaining a profit.
With aim of protection interests of DIYers, I think that the patent law must be changed. Likewise DIYers have not be obliged to pay tax while filing for a patent, when their inventions are not subjected for commercial use, but only for personal use, thus – DIY use.
BTW Igreen, those Scott Wurcer and lineup who criticized my proposition are simply having some business under!!!
So, their arguments are not seems to be impartial as well. All what they have said is subjected by their business interests only and are not to be trusted.
As I see Igreen, you have some business either?
So, their arguments are not seems to be impartial as well. All what they have said is subjected by their business interests only and are not to be trusted.
As I see Igreen, you have some business either?
AndriyOL said:
Right, I see, as I suspected - you are a Lawyer or similar parasite.
Before you start insulting people you should take the time to read some threads and see how Scott and lineup have given generously of their time and knowledge.
w
- Status
- Not open for further replies.