Patents - discussion of issues

[rolygate]

Just thought I'd make a couple of points here. There were two reasons for starting this discussion:

- Because previously it seemed a bit taboo, and a full and open discussion of the issues had not taken place.

- Because ECF is involved more than most.

To explain #2: this is not a theoretical issue for us, it's real. For example we have been threatened with lawyers twice, which I doubt applies to anyone else much. What happens is that because we publish details of a new product by Company A, Company B who claim to have rights to it then threaten us, the publishers, first - to try and kill any advertising.

So please don't talk as if we don't have a stake here. It looks as if we will get hit before anyone.

It's worth discussing this subject, for us, because in the end we have to come up with rules for what is done on this site. That's always the way it works. And usually, ECF is way out the front and always has been, so we have to make the first decision on it. This situation has all the signs of developing into a nightmare, which is what you get when lawyers become involved. It might mean all sorts of restrictions that we would prefer to avoid, because rules just make more work for us.

I'm just putting it out there that there is a problem coming, and it will probably hit us first. Do with that what you will.

 

[retird]

Just thought I'd make a couple of points here. There were two reasons for starting this discussion:

- Because previously it seemed a bit taboo, and a full and open discussion of the issues had not taken place.

- Because ECF is involved more than most.

To explain #2: this is not a theoretical issue for us, it's real. For example we have been threatened with lawyers twice, which I doubt applies to anyone else much. What happens is that because we publish details of a new product by Company A, Company B who claim to have rights to it then threaten us, the publishers, first - to try and kill any advertising.

So please don't talk as if we don't have a stake here. It looks as if we will get hit before anyone.

It's worth discussing this subject, for us, because in the end we have to come up with rules for what is done on this site. That's always the way it works. And usually, ECF is way out the front and always has been, so we have to make the first decision on it. This situation has all the signs of developing into a nightmare, which is what you get when lawyers become involved. It might mean all sorts of restrictions that we would prefer to avoid, because rules just make more work for us.

I'm just putting it out there that there is a problem coming, and it will probably hit us first. Do with that what you will.

As a lay person(not an attorney), I have the following comments specifically related to your item #2:

Company A advertises a new product--- ECF has no idea whether they are rightfully entitled to sell the new product...

Company B complains and asserts they have the rights--- ECF has no idea whether their claim is valid....

If ECF takes any action toward either Company, it seems to me that the company may have an issue with ECF because of the ECF's action toward them...

It seems to me that a "disclaimer" may be added to the ECF rules that the ECF does not determine the validity of any product or service, and further that any claims or disputes between Companies are only legal matters that involve only the companies. The "disclaimer' could also include that any legal entanglement that the ECF is dragged into will involve the companies paying for all costs incurred by ECF for their involvement..

Just my non-legal opinion....

 

[BuzzKill]

Just thought I'd make a couple of points here. There were two reasons for starting this discussion:

- Because previously it seemed a bit taboo, and a full and open discussion of the issues had not taken place.

- Because ECF is involved more than most.

To explain #2: this is not a theoretical issue for us, it's real. For example we have been threatened with lawyers twice, which I doubt applies to anyone else much. What happens is that because we publish details of a new product by Company A, Company B who claim to have rights to it then threaten us, the publishers, first - to try and kill any advertising.

So please don't talk as if we don't have a stake here. It looks as if we will get hit before anyone.

It's worth discussing this subject, for us, because in the end we have to come up with rules for what is done on this site. That's always the way it works. And usually, ECF is way out the front and always has been, so we have to make the first decision on it. This situation has all the signs of developing into a nightmare, which is what you get when lawyers become involved. It might mean all sorts of restrictions that we would prefer to avoid, because rules just make more work for us.

I'm just putting it out there that there is a problem coming, and it will probably hit us first. Do with that what you will.

Roly thanks for the explanation , we had no Idea that ECF had experienced this !
all I can say is WOW sorry to hear that .
IMO ECF has nothing to do with it , the fact that this happened is crazy .

 

[BuzzKill]

As a lay person(not an attorney), I have the following comments specifically related to your item #2:

Company A advertises a new product--- ECF has no idea whether they are rightfully entitled to sell the new product...

Company B complains and asserts they have the rights--- ECF has no idea whether their claim is valid....

If ECF takes any action toward either Company, it seems to me that the company may have an issue with ECF because of the ECF's action toward them...

It seems to me that a "disclaimer" may be added to the ECF rules that the ECF does not determine the validity of any product or service, and further that any claims or disputes between Companies are only legal matters that involve only the companies. The "disclaimer' could also include that any legal entanglement that the ECF is dragged into will involve the companies paying for all costs incurred by ECF for their involvement..

Just my non-legal opinion....

Retird I think you hit that one on the head ! IMO

 

[mj64]

Unfortunately increased litigation and threats of litigation is all too common with companies having a large internet presence. What may be making the situation more credible than one would think is the fact that a paid relationship exists between suppliers and ECF, thus cementing the idea that the relationship is publisher\advertiser versus simply publisher\author.

 

[BuzzKill]

Unfortunately increased litigation and threats of litigation is all too common with companies having a large internet presence. What may be making the situation more credible than one would think is the fact that a paid relationship exists between suppliers and ECF, thus cementing the idea that the relationship is publisher\advertiser versus simply publisher\author.

I look at it like a magazine , the magazine is NOT liable for an advertisers truth in advertising right ? Or if they publish and opinion it is the opinion of the writer not the mag. as far as technical ideas or design Ideas those are the responsibility of the poster or writer not the forum or mag.
Just because I wrote on your forum does not make the forum liable for what I write . IMO ( I am not a lawyer FYI !!! )

 

[mj64]

Online media works a little differently. Companies often voluntarily remove information that violates copyright after a simple complaint from the copyright holder. Courts all over the world issue rulings that require companies to remove web content, for civil and criminal violations. I'd say the likelihood of damages being awarded isn't good unless malice can be proven, but often just responding to an actual suit incurs enough financial damage in and of itself.

 

[retird]

Online media works a little differently. Companies often voluntarily remove information that violates copyright after a simple complaint from the copyright holder. Courts all over the world issue rulings that require companies to remove web content, for civil and criminal violations. I'd say the likelihood of damages being awarded isn't good unless malice can be proven, but often just responding to an actual suit incurs enough financial damage in and of itself.

From the example given, I think Company B is demanding removal, not a court ruling....and if I understand this seems to be a Patent issue and not a copyright issue...so does make a difference?

 

[mj64]

From the example given, I think Company B is demanding removal, not a court ruling....and if I understand this seems to be a Patent issue and not a copyright issue...so does make a difference?

Well, companies and individuals demand things all the time. My question would be, what law was broken, or what damages were alleged? Without that info it remains a vague hypothetical.

 

[Creniker]

I like the way this conversation is turning. Its making a lot more sense. I agree a disclaimer or sorts would protect the ECF. I do not know if it possible at this point, but that would make sense. Time will tell.

 

[UberGeek]

All it takes to knock down any sort of patent suit over a design is to provide an example of prior art. Such as dated forum postings of the device in use.

And, I doubt any PV manufacturer will use a court to impugn any person making one for their own use, or even small-time vendors (We don't really have any large vendors). Patent suits are expensive, and unless you've got your target scared, nothing comes of it.

However, should you come up with some neato design for a PV, Carto, drip tip, whatever; you can get a patent on it, license it pro-grata, through a public posting.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Should you require legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

 

[UberGeek]

Just thought I'd make a couple of points here. There were two reasons for starting this discussion:

- Because previously it seemed a bit taboo, and a full and open discussion of the issues had not taken place.

- Because ECF is involved more than most.

To explain #2: this is not a theoretical issue for us, it's real. For example we have been threatened with lawyers twice, which I doubt applies to anyone else much. What happens is that because we publish details of a new product by Company A, Company B who claim to have rights to it then threaten us, the publishers, first - to try and kill any advertising.

So please don't talk as if we don't have a stake here. It looks as if we will get hit before anyone.

It's worth discussing this subject, for us, because in the end we have to come up with rules for what is done on this site. That's always the way it works. And usually, ECF is way out the front and always has been, so we have to make the first decision on it. This situation has all the signs of developing into a nightmare, which is what you get when lawyers become involved. It might mean all sorts of restrictions that we would prefer to avoid, because rules just make more work for us.

I'm just putting it out there that there is a problem coming, and it will probably hit us first. Do with that what you will.

ECF is protected by the safe-harbor clause of the DMCA for allegations of copyright infringement.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Should you require legal advice, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

 

[Barto]

I like the way this conversation is turning. Its making a lot more sense. I agree a disclaimer or sorts would protect the ECF. I do not know if it possible at this point, but that would make sense. Time will tell.

Yep, it would definitely protect ECF.

 

[Wrainn]

Wow, that was good!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

 

[Vapian]

Legally speaking "art" may be a vague term, but "prior art" with respect to patents is not. It is (basically) all information that was made publicly available prior to a given date that have bearing on a patent applications claim(s) of originality.

 

[MadmanMacguyver]

Legally speaking "art" may be a vague term, but "prior art" with respect to patents is not. It is (basically) all information that was made publicly available prior to a given date that have bearing on a patent applications claim(s) of originality.

I'm not a lawer...but t is now my understanding the US patent law has changed...it is now FIRST TO FILE like in the EU...kinda stupid if you ask me...that puts the power/ball in the big corporate lawyer's court...pardon the pun...The USA WAS the last country to have first to Create....so if I am correct Prior art now truly means nothing...there ARE alternative methods like Open source or limited open source publishing of a given design...but I do not know the details of that...

 

[Vapian]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, either, so take this FWIW ... but this is from the the U.S. Patent Office web site (emphasis mine):

Question FITF1600: Under the first-inventor-to-file provisions, does a public use or sale activity have to occur “in this country” to qualify as prior art?

No. Under the first-inventor-to-file provisions, a prior use or sale activity may occur anywhere in the world and qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). If such public use or sale activity were by the inventor, either directly or indirectly, and not more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, then the public use or sale activity would fall into a prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).

I take this to mean that prior art still applies to patent applications, with one exception being when the inventor themselves is the first to publish or makes available, provided that their patent application is made within one year of same. This kind of makes sense as it prevents an inventor of something original from shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, in getting something out early and prior to their application.

On a separate note, I'm beginning to wonder what penalties, if any, there are for claiming "Patent Pending" when in fact no application has been made, or continuing to make the claim if an application is rejected. I know of at least two items being sold that riff off something I came up a while back that have been claiming "pending" status for close to two years, but unless they are using some truly obscure terminology to describe it I cannot for the life of me find any patent or application that seems to match.

 

[onjre]

So I'm wondering about this gpl idea... If a bunch of modders on ecf come up with some awesome new thing by working out of their garage and everyone agrees they should patent it but give a public license... Who's shelling out all the $$$ for the patent? Who's protecting the patent?

It seems to me that if you're going to pay all that money to get a patent on something you invented (perhaps with some comments from others) there's little incentive to give it away.

I imagine the reason things get ripped off from the modders forum is more due to the fact that it's too expensive to get a patent than people don't want to share their inventions. After you pay for a patent THEN you don't want to share it.

Hope that made sense.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Alexander Mundy]

Way beyond the cost of the patent is the cost of pursuing someone with big pockets that steals it.

Case in point is the intermittent wiper system.

Robert Kearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[beast775]

Lots of great info going on in this thread,thanks.mark.