Nhaler copy

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

My Gawd.. it's the SuperT thread all over again.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's a copy.. a knock-off... a replica. SO WHAT?

This is business folks. If you're going to come out with a PV or a mod or whatever... and you have half a brain and are a businessman.. you take all of the prior art that you can find.. analyze the heck out of it... copy the stuff that works (and isn't protected by patents).. try to improve the stuff that doesn't work... and then try to figure out a way to make it as inexpensively as you can while preserving the quality, function, and value.

And that's how it's done. Period. To some extent every PV out there is a copy or a knock-off of the PV's that proceeded it. And every mod attempts to emulate the good features of the ones that came before it.. while fixing the deficiencies. This is evolution, not innovation.

Don't think for one minute that Ford doesn't own a bunch of Chevy cars and trucks that they tear apart every day. And don't think that Kenmore isn't trying to figure out a way to copy the nifty features that LG just put in their latest dryer.

As a consumer, you should be thrilled.

Well said !!!! that was exactly my point!!!!

 

[Crash]

My Gawd.. it's the SuperT thread all over again.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's a copy.. a knock-off... a replica. SO WHAT?

This is business folks. If you're going to come out with a PV or a mod or whatever... and you have half a brain and are a businessman.. you take all of the prior art that you can find.. analyze the heck out of it... copy the stuff that works (and isn't protected by patents).. try to improve the stuff that doesn't work... and then try to figure out a way to make it as inexpensively as you can while preserving the quality, function, and value.

And that's how it's done. Period. To some extent every PV out there is a copy or a knock-off of the PV's that proceeded it. And every mod attempts to emulate the good features of the ones that came before it.. while fixing the deficiencies. This is evolution, not innovation.

Don't think for one minute that Ford doesn't own a bunch of Chevy cars and trucks that they tear apart every day. And don't think that Kenmore isn't trying to figure out a way to copy the nifty features that LG just put in their latest dryer.

As a consumer, you should be thrilled.

I bet you shop at wal-mart, because you sound like a representative for them. And what do you mean SO WHAT??? its theft of intellectual property. Its not always about cheap prices, I think the manufacturers need to have some ethics. I have yet to seen a ford car that looks just like a chevy have you?? they come out with models that will compete with each other, but not replicas

 

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

I bet you shop at wal-mart, because you sound like a representative for them. And what do you mean SO WHAT??? its theft of intellectual property. Its not always about cheap prices, I think the manufacturers need to have some ethics. I have yet to seen a ford car that looks just like a chevy have you?? they come out with models that will compete with each other, but not replicas[/quote You put gas in both and they get you from A to B!!!! You put juice in them and they both produce vapor!!!! I don't recall a automobile patent? Wait thiers a intellectual patent available?lmao

 

[Lisaf01]

If this kind of thing keeps happening, it will stop the innovators from innovating and the copiers will have nothing left to "evolve" from.
How happy is the consumer in this scenario?

 

[Stormynights]

I would think if you came up with a new idea you wouldn't want someone else to get the profit from your hard work.

 

[ESmoking1979]

they come out with models that will compete with each other, but not replicas

Indeed. The question remains whether or not this XHaler is an actual replica of the older Grant, or whether it's been improved or modified somehow, or has copmpletely different internal parts. Until we know for sure, all we can say is *IF* it is an exact replica, *then* yada yada yada...

 

[Crash]

I bet you shop at wal-mart, because you sound like a representative for them. And what do you mean SO WHAT??? its theft of intellectual property. Its not always about cheap prices, I think the manufacturers need to have some ethics. I have yet to seen a ford car that looks just like a chevy have you?? they come out with models that will compete with each other, but not replicas[/quote You put gas in both and they get you from A to B!!!! You put juice in them and they both produce vapor!!!! I don't recall a automobile patent? Wait thiers a intellectual patent available?lmao

You know what you're right, no point arguing with someone that doesn't want to see the bigger picture.

Indeed. The question remains whether or not this XHaler is an actual replica of the older Grant, or whether it's been improved or modified somehow, or has copmpletely different internal parts. Until we know for sure, all we can say is *IF* it is an exact replica, then yada yada yada...

Yup we're just speculating

 

[Scottbee]

I bet you shop at wal-mart, because you sound like a representative for them. And what do you mean SO WHAT??? its theft of intellectual property. Its not always about cheap prices, I think the manufacturers need to have some ethics. I have yet to seen a ford car that looks just like a chevy have you?? they come out with models that will compete with each other, but not replicas

I don't believe you know or understand what "intellectual property" actually is.

If there is a novel, unique, or advanced form of technology or design... or if there is a novel, unique, or advanced embodiment of an aggregation of prior art then that may be considered to be "intellectual property" and may perhaps be protectable under patent law. But one must actually do an invention disclosure or apply for a patent prior to public disclosure of the device or embodiment. Generally speaking, the simple aggregation of prior art (that is literally decades old) into a form-factor is not considered to be intellectual property, nor can it be protected.

If there was something that could have been protected on the GG design, then it should have been protected. If there wasn't... or the designer didn't protect himself through negligence.. then there is absolutely no violation of intellectual property.

Period.

(P.S. Ya think maybe I know what I'm talking about here?)

 

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

I don't believe you know or understand what "intellectual property" actually is.

If there is a novel, unique, or advanced form of technology or design... or if there is a novel, unique, or advanced embodiment of an aggregation of prior art then that may be considered to be "intellectual property" and may perhaps be protectable under patent law. But one must actually do an invention disclosure or apply for a patent prior to public disclosure of the device or embodiment. Generally speaking, the simple aggregation of prior art (that is literally decades old) into a form-factor is not considered to be intellectual property, nor can it be protected.

If there was something that could have been protected on the GG design, then it should have been protected. If there wasn't... or the designer didn't protect himself through negligence.. then there is absolutely no violation of intellectual property.

Period.

(P.S. Ya think maybe I know what I'm talking about here?)

Now thats the bigger picture !!!!!! well said!

 

[Crash]

I don't believe you know or understand what "intellectual property" actually is.

If there is a novel, unique, or advanced form of technology or design... or if there is a novel, unique, or advanced embodiment of an aggregation of prior art then that may be considered to be "intellectual property" and may perhaps be protectable under patent law. But one must actually do an invention disclosure or apply for a patent prior to public disclosure of the device or embodiment. Generally speaking, the simple aggregation of prior art (that is literally decades old) into a form-factor is not considered to be intellectual property, nor can it be protected.

If there was something that could have been protected on the GG design, then it should have been protected. If there wasn't... or the designer didn't protect himself through negligence.. then there is absolutely no violation of intellectual property.

Period.

(P.S. Ya think maybe I know what I'm talking about here?)

Oh thank you for bringing my lost soul out of the darkness by enlightening me with your wisdom. Should I kiss your ... now or later??

I'm glad I'm getting to see that some of you people have no morals or follow any kind of ethical code.

 

[doots]

Maybe Drew can Chime in here and let us know.

 

[Scottbee]

Oh thank you for bringing my lost soul out of the darkness by enlightening me with your wisdom. Should I kiss your ... now or later??

I'm glad I'm getting to see that some of you people have no morals or follow any kind of ethical code.

"If you're intellectually challenged and aren't capable of communicating in a civil manner try not to reply to my posts."

Sound familiar?

 

[Crash]

Maybe Drew can Chime in here and let us know.

Yea sure if he wants to come in here any say that the design wasn't copyrighted he had no problems copying it (if he copied it that is) because there would be no legal repercussions that would be great. And it would also reinforce the point that so many in here are trying to make, it doesn't matter if its ethical or not as long as you don't break any laws.

 

[Scottbee]

Maybe Drew can Chime in here and let us know.

I don't actually think that he can (or should). Not his forum or sub-forum.

But I know that he has already commented on this subject elsewhere.

 

[Crash]

"If you're intellectually challenged and aren't capable of communicating in a civil manner try not to reply to my posts."

Sound familiar?

Hm it does, maybe you should have read it before you decided to post in here, maybe I really need to rephrase that to "ECF now facilitating all ......s" Right gona ignore you now before I get a warning.

 

[doots]

I don't actually think that he can (or should). Not his forum or sub-forum.

But I know that he has already commented on this subject elsewhere.

I forgot. that's true

 

[vapn]

i would think if you came up with a new idea you wouldn't want someone else to get the profit from your hard work.

this is the point here folks hard work!!!

 

[Crash]

I don't actually think that he can (or should). Not his forum or sub-forum.

But I know that he has already commented on this subject elsewhere.

I'm sure he could, Imeo wouldn't complain if he came in here to confess. But no guilty party ever confesses

 

[Lisaf01]

We can't force people to have morals or ethics, nor can we make them even see the point of having them. You either get it or you don't.

 

[Scottbee]

I'm sure he could, Imeo wouldn't complain if he came in here to confess. But no guilty party ever confesses

No Crash... I actually believe that is against the forum rules.