1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Patent and copyright protection

Home Forums Archive TSI Research Patent and copyright protection

This topic contains 36 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Carl-Pålsson Carl-Pålsson 4 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7241
    Avatar of Gilpatric
    Gilpatric
    Participant

    I would certainly hope, that even as a non-profit organization, TSI would still wish to protect their IP enough to prevent others from claiming it for exclusive use. Whether designs and writings are licensed under Creative Commons or traditional copyright, any substantively new invention or improvment, to include processes, should be safeguarded so that no other orgabnization or individual can keep the technology for themselves.

    This is normally done simply by disclosing the invention to the public. Once an invention is disclosed to the public, nobody can patent it or restrict the right to make or use the invention.

    Whether you use the international patenting process or not, you will have to pay the filing and issue fees for each jurisdiction in which you desire patent protection. If you file what is known as an EU patent application, you must pay the fees for each jurisdiction in which you desire patent protection.

    The so-called ‘International Patent’ does not confer worldwide patent protection.

    #9318
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    I’d just like to point out to everyone that patents are irrelevant for non-commercial use. A boat you build yourself can be an exact knockoff of one for sale and so long as you don’t sell it: that doesn’t matter.

    The matter isn’t really up for debate as far as the Non-profit is concerned because they have to dot their “I”‘s and cross their “T”‘s, however use independant researcher’s are free to build and design and innovate free from concern. It’s actually in an inventors interest to be completely free of outside influences if he is looking to take the product to market, because an unintentional infringment does not carry punitive damages.

    #9362
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I’d just like to point out to everyone that patents are irrelevant for non-commercial use. A boat you build yourself can be an exact knockoff of one for sale and so long as you don’t sell it: that doesn’t matter.

    The matter isn’t really up for debate as far as the Non-profit is concerned because they have to dot their “I”‘s and cross their “T”‘s, however use independant researcher’s are free to build and design and innovate free from concern. It’s actually in an inventors interest to be completely free of outside influences if he is looking to take the product to market, because an unintentional infringment does not carry punitive damages.

    Well spoken.

    I think we need to add this: Yes you can sell the one you made for personal use, but, to keep from infringing, you may not profit from the sale… ie: Keep your receipts and record of costs, just in case, but don’t go commercial, unless you really want that headache and make sure you account for depreciation from use, disuse, aging, etc., as well as up-grades and repairs. In this case, the individual must also croos ‘t’s’ and dot ‘i’s.’ If/when you decide to sell, get a proper appraisal of fair-market-value, as well, in writing, just to cover the bases and be sure to pay the applicable sales taxes to the Gov’t of registry, when you do sell it.

    On another note, has anyone considered having the 1st production model of a SeaStead certified like an automobile, boat, aircraft, or manufactured home? Sell it with a pre-certified status, for easy registration in the country(ies) of the flag(s) of convenience? Suppose you make it in the US, have it meet the US and EU certification standards, based on using the original certification as proof that it meets those standards… Presuming that there is a “Standardized Design Model.” So you get the ‘Pinto,’ ‘Mustang,’ ‘Capri,’ etc. set of options, plus custom options, within normal range of up-grades… Paint, furnishings, # of rooms, etc.

    Later,

    J.L..F.

    If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef

    #9368
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Actually, according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office: “Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent.”

    So simply making something in your garage and using it for yourself is patent infringement. The chance you are going to be discovered and sued is incredibly remote, however.

    What I find hysterical is : “The Government may use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the Government.” Gotta love that democracy, eh?

    The WTO feels the same way about patents. From Part II, Section 5, Article 28 of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights:

    1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights: (a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the acts of: making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes that product; (b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the act of using the process, and from the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process.

    I believe some other countries allow non-commercial and/or private use of patents without the patent holder’s consent.

    #9679
    Avatar of Murray1776
    Murray1776
    Participant

    Patents and copyrights are an artificial concept of the state. That is in opposition to the goal of this project, to escape the state. Voluntary contractual agreements are one thing but to have hopes of using violent force to safeguard your knowledge instead of securing that knowledge with appropriate technology is wrong.

    #9684
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Murray1776 wrote:

    Patents and copyrights are an artificial concept of the state. That is in opposition to the goal of this project, to escape the state. Voluntary contractual agreements are one thing but to have hopes of using violent force to safeguard your knowledge instead of securing that knowledge with appropriate technology is wrong.

    Violent force is not the objective, developing viable technology is. If a patent is issued, ALL companies of the countries bound by treaties, are subject to paying to use those patents. Legaleze for “Thou shalt not…”

    Once a patent has been issued, it is enforceable by international law. That should be understood as a “Pay me, to use my idea” type registration… A “Ford” “Mustang” is a Ford Mustang…(for example)

    Later,

    J.L..F.

    If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef

    #9702
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    Violent force is not the objective, developing viable technology is.

    Patents are enforced with violence.

    Legaleze for “Thou shalt not…”

    …copy?

    A “Ford” “Mustang” is a Ford Mustang…(for example)

    Misrepresenting your products is fraud. No need for special trademark or IP laws.

    Furthermore anyone contracting to selling a Ford Mustang and instead delivering something else will go out of business very rapidly. The market has no tolerance for fraudulent or unreliable actors.

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)

The forum ‘TSI Research’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate