DIYers be careful

[Anonymous]

So if I reverse engineer it and use a different type hex nut, it's legal?

Where does it step on their toes?

 

[esmithiii]

It is not legal to simply change the hardware. In the claim, there are specific criteria that spell out what is protected by the patent. In my example above (the Squirrel Swir) I use a dramatically different approach to perform the same function, which is legal. Using the same approach but different materials is not legal.

In any case, patent infringement disputes are settled by lawyers and courts which interpret the law, the claim and make judgement calls as to what constitutes "the same approach." As in all law, there is much gray area.

Ernie

 

[MattM]

Ernie is correct in that it takes lawyers and courts (and sometimes years) to figure out what constitues infringement. I have read the entire text of the patent and it does seem like some of the claims are covered by prior art, but until the patent is challenged, it stands.

Let me reiterate...You want to make a PATENTED product for yourself and use it yourself.....FINE......Just don't go and put plans or drawings or pictures in a magazine, book, or the INTERNET, because by doing so you are breaking the law...NOT our law...The law of the United States Patent Office. ......Ed

Actually, Ed at Aquarium Currents is not correct in this interpretation. The applicable section of U.S. Code Title 35 states:

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

No where in patent law is it illegal to reverse engineer and post or publish the design. By it's very definition, the design of patented products are public knowledge. If you want to make one, read the patent and its accompanying diagrams - it has all you need. If you DO make one, you are violating the patent, but not if you simply publish the design.

For example, here is the diagram that accompanies the patent:

This diagram came directly from the US Patent and Trademark Office. It is not a violation of the patent or any other law to post this or similar diagrams - they became public knowledge when the patent was granted. If what Ed asserts were true, it would be a crime to discuss patented products - it is not. Only to make, use or sell them without authorization from the patent holder.

 

[esmithiii]

No where in patent law is it illegal to reverse engineer and post or publish the design. By it's very definition, the design of patented products are public knowledge. If you want to make one, read the patent and its accompanying diagrams - it has all you need. If you DO make one, you are violating the patent, but not if you simply publish the design.

That is also my understanding of the law.

I have had my designs designated as "Trade Secrets" by the company where I worked because the corporate lawyers felt the best way to protect the intellectual property was to designate it as a trade secret and not go after a patent because of the disclosure required by the patent process.

Ernie

 

[ErikS]

...

 

[esmithiii]

My point was, out of 20,000 RC visitors how many could actually DIY the product? Or more clearly stated, was it worth the ill will? If they lose 20 - 30 customers who can make the item is it worth annoying several hundred others? I realize it may have been a patent infringment, but what was the out come? He wasn't marketing the product, he wasn't selling the plans - the ONLY customers he cost AC were the ones could DIY the item, I still say that was a very few. Now with their "snarly" responses AC has alienated several hundred other customers, hope it was worth it. What I found funny was that if they had done nothing it would have died away w/o much fuss, now they've created a nice little "discussion item".

What I also find annoying is that they used their "sponsorship" to get the thread locked & deleted, makes them look even worse. It also makes the RC staff appear to be gutless lackeys.

ErikS,

I couldn't disagree more. You have obviously never had a design or other intelectual property "stolen" from you. I have, and I can tell you that it is incredibly incensing. The point that they made was that they are not so much worried about the DIY crowd, but more the fellow who will knock the item off and then sell it to fellow reefers. That happens all the time, btw, and I could cite a few examples that I am sure you are aware of. Someone who takes the plans and builds another one for sale get the benefit of skipping all the development costs (which are much more substantial than you might believe). Its not fair, ethical nor legal.

I for one do not believe that AC put many potential customers off at all. If I had had a chance to put my $.02 in, I think many people would have agreed with me. By the time the thread was closed, only opposing views had been posted; no views supporting AC were posted. I have little sympathy for aquarists who get pissed because they can't cheat someone out of the revenue that they deserve by law.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't get a chance to view the thread before the Nazis at RC deleted it.

But, I think the issue is that AC shouldn't have been pissed because someone posted public information.

If anyone can go get that info off of the patent website, they should be pissed at themselves for patenting it and making the technology public.

To my knowledge, no one was trying to make money off of it, and no one was selling the plans, or an item based off those plans.

A person was simply posting the same plans that are already public knowledge.


It seems shady to me that a company would get pissed about the FOIA and publicness of their patents.

 

[esmithiii]

Dr. Reef,

The difference was that they posted not only plans, which are documented publicly, but how to knock it off- i.e. which parts to buy, how to put it all together. That is a big difference.

According to RC, promoting the building of a patented device by unauthorized parties is also illegal, and would open up RC to civil liabilities.

I am looking for relevent legislation now. Will attempt to post the link.

Ernie

 

[ErikS]

...

 

[SPC]

Posted by Ernie:

I have little sympathy for aquarists who get pissed because they can't cheat someone out of the revenue that they deserve by law.

-I agree 100% with this statement.

The difference was that they posted not only plans, which are documented publicly, but how to knock it off- i.e. which parts to buy, how to put it all together. That is a big difference.

-This is exactly the way it happened, it wasn't just a matter of posting a drawing.

Posted by Erik S:

What I also find annoying is that they used their "sponsorship" to get the thread locked & deleted, makes them look even worse. It also makes the RC staff appear to be gutless lackeys.

-Do you have any proof to back up this statement?
Steve

 

[ErikS]

....

 

[liquid]

esmithiii said:

The difference was that they posted not only plans, which are documented publicly, but how to knock it off- i.e. which parts to buy, how to put it all together. That is a big difference.

I saw the thread and also the website where the plans and parts were published. With the information there and on the USPTO website, just about anyone could DIY that product. It's not that hard with a complete parts list and a little know-how.

esmithiii said:

I have little sympathy for aquarists who get pissed because they can't cheat someone out of the revenue that they deserve by law.

I agree 110% here. These laws were put into law for a reason.

EricS said:

What I also find annoying is that they used their "sponsorship" to get the thread locked & deleted, makes them look even worse.

I'd also like to see proof of this as I did not come away from reading any of those threads with this confirmed.

My point was, out of 20,000 RC visitors how many could actually DIY the product? Or more clearly stated, was it worth the ill will? If they lose 20 - 30 customers who can make the item is it worth annoying several hundred others? I realize it may have been a patent infringment, but what was the out come? He wasn't marketing the product, he wasn't selling the plans - the ONLY customers he cost AC were the ones could DIY the item, I still say that was a very few. Now with their "snarly" responses AC has alienated several hundred other customers, hope it was worth it. What I found funny was that if they had done nothing it would have died away w/o much fuss, now they've created a nice little "discussion item".

I seem to remember a couple months back Dr. Mac got a negative thread deleted in the Vendor's forum over at RC and he even insinuated litigation over it if memory serves me. There was a nasty backlash by a number of users, but the effects of it were temporary and nothing more. Long term AC will not be affected by this "incident".

Personally, I firmly believe that AC made the appropriate decision and acted completely within their rights. I have no pitty for the people that are upset at this.

Shane

 

[ErikS]

.....

 

[liquid]

EricS wrote:

Are we going to get into a situation where everything is "to the letter"?

If forwarded to the right lawyer it sure could. hehe

Shane

 

[dizzy]

Erik S,

Ed did what he had to do. If he had allowed that thread to stay up there it could have been interpreted as abandonment of the patent. It is the obligation of the patent holder to stop incidences of possible infringment when he knows about them. Failure to do so could weaken or destroy his patent so give the guy a break already.

MG

 

[ErikS]

I'm guess I'm still not being clear. The deleted thread I'm talking about is the one discussing the whole issue, not the one containing the DIY advice. To be more precise the thread isn't deleted, it's locked with all the replies deleted.

And hell no, I'm not about to give them a break. A break from what? Discussing the issue? Why? They did what they did & now it's up for discussion.

I don't believe for a second that you'd ever get "abandonment of patent" from having the DIY stuff removed from the offending web site & left the entire thread on RC.

As I've also said before, laminar flow is the new direction and as such the SS is a technological dead end, the whole thing doesn't really matter.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't get a chance to view the thread before the Nazis at RC deleted it.

Dr Reef, you owe the moderators of RC an apology for this comment. I don't appreciate being called a "nazi", and until you have the same facts that we have, it doesn't seem appropriate for you to sit in judgement.

Perhaps hurling insults is your chosen level of response, but it speaks poorly of your maturity.

BrianD
Moderator at RC

 

[SPC]

Posted by Erik S:

But I need no proof as it's just an opinion. I never asserted it as fact as evidenced the disclaimer at that goes with all my posts.

-Huh?? You mean because you have something at the bottom of all of your posts that everything you write is JYO? Let me see if I can get this straight, you can make a statement like this:

What I also find annoying is that they used their "sponsorship" to get the thread locked & deleted, makes them look even worse.

...but you don't need to back it up with proof?

But here is a link to the proof -

http://reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showth ... did=133157

And the quote (from Agu @ ReefCentral.Com - Admins, other site referral is for documentation only, not promotional)

Quote:
First, patent infringement and the inducement to patent infringement. Ed has paid his attorney to review the "questionable" thread and has been advised there is indeed potential patent infringement and possible inducement. At his request the thread has been removed.

-What proof? I don't see where anyone is saying a thread was pulled because of AS being a sponsor???
Steve

 

[Mac1]

Here Here Brian!
It's funny, because I was just going to say: I learned early on in adult-hood, that if the masses disagree with you as strongly as they seem to sometime's, it's usually for a reason.

- Mac

 

[esmithiii]

I, too, am unhappy that the thread was locked. Open discussion of why the original thread with the plans was removed (I agree 100% with why it was removed) would be the best way to come to some common ground and understanding on this issue. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that all the posts on the thread were one-sided against AC. I would have appreciated the chance to put my $.02 in on the side of AC.

As for AC's conduct, the only thing that I feel that they are guilty of is not using enough paragraphs in thier posts. Man, it is hard to read a whole page of text without any blank spaces to seperate paragraphs into thoughts.

I think their reaction was measured and appropriate.