DIYers be careful

[Mac1]

I think their reaction was measured and appropriate.

Right on, 100%!
I think it's also important to note that the admin's at RC may not have been any happier w/ their action's than anyone here... but in the name of self preservation, I don't blame them one bit... I hardly think any of these board's has the kind of budget needed to hire an attorney and fight a legal battle, no matter how frivolous. The court fee's alone....

- Mac

 

[M.E.Milz]

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

Ernie (and several others) has it right. The US patent laws prohibit someone from "inducing" another to infringe a patent. The applicable statute is 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

And yes, making a device for your own use IS an infringment of the patent (so long as it falls within one or more of the claims of the patent) irrespective of whether you make any money. The patent holder would have a right to collect damages (either a royalty or lost profits) from you.

BTW, I am a patent lawyer (but I am obviously not offering any opinions on the substance of the matter ).

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Obviously it would help your assumption if the company in question was a sponsor.

Brian

 

[SPC]

Obviously it would help your assumption if the company in question was a sponsor.

:lol: Yea that might just be an important factor :lol: :roll: .
Steve

 

[MattM]

The US patent laws prohibit someone from "inducing" another to infringe a patent. The applicable statute is 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

I have couple questions on this. I am not a laywer but am familiar with USC Title 35 and have submitted items to the USPTO before.

1. Does merely posting a plan and/or instructions generally constitute "active inducement?"
   
2. I never saw what was posted since it was deleted, but I wonder about the validity of the following line of reasoning:
   
   Either the plans and instructions posted were substantially the same as the Sea Swirl design, or they were substantially different. If the former, then posting them can not constitute an infringement since the design and instructions are substantially the same as that publicly available from the USPTO web site. If the latter, then it is a different design and therefore also not an infringement.

If you check my earlier posts on the this thread, you'll see that I'm not opposed to patent protection, but I don't think it is a clear-cut issue that posting a design in a public forum constitutes a patent infringement. On the other hand, prohibiting the posting of that design may very well be a SLAPP or free speech issue.

 

[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.

Look, if Bush can get over being called a Nazi by Schroeder then I think you will live. I said it to be inflammatory, and I used the comparison because it seemed very "big brother" of you to delete a whole passage with no explanation to your constituents. Had you been up front, and not been so shady in your handling of the situation, the whole situation probably would have resolved itself.

Give people the facts, we do have brains, and we will likely agree with you if you have sufficient evidence in your favor. There is no doubt you acted appropriately by deleting the post on your board, however, keeping the reasons and rationale secret from your users only promotes distrust, confusion, and exasperation. My comment was directed at the overtness of your decision, not the merits of such actions.

In other words, I agree with the ends, but not the means.

Regards,
Brian D (what a coincidence)

 

[dizzy]

Wow,

Dr. Reef that reminded me of Clinton apologizing for the Monia affair. Have you thought about a career in politics? :wink:

MG

 

[Anonymous]

Look, if Bush can get over being called a Nazi by Schroeder then I think you will live.

Oh, I see. If someone else uses insulting, incendiary comments that makes it ok. Thanks for pointing out that pearl of wisdom.

I said it to be inflammatory

So out of character for you

and I used the comparison because it seemed very "big brother" of you to delete a whole passage with no explanation to your constituents.

I assume you must have missed the sticky thread explaining that some threads had been moved. Most would have made a connection without further explanation. You, however......

Give people the facts, we do have brains, and we will likely agree with you if you have sufficient evidence in your favor.

Why do you feel that we need to justify our decisions to you? The arrogance in that statement is astounding.

There is no doubt you acted appropriately by deleting the post on your board

Exactly.

however, keeping the reasons and rationale secret from your users only promotes distrust, confusion, and exasperation.

See above reference to sticky thread.

My comment was directed at the overtness of your decision, not the merits of such actions.

I am confused. Above you say we kept the reasons secret, and here you criticize the overtness of our decision. You either are inconsistent or need to buy a dictionary and look up "overtness".

BTW, I don't want to take credit for the decisions on these threads on RC. We discuss these matters and usually don't agree 100%, but we do what the majority thinks is best, or wait until the people who pay the bills make the final call.

In other words, I agree with the ends, but not the means.

Hmm. We were asked to move threads due to alleged patent infringement. We moved said threads. Other threads appeared addressing the same issue. Rather than have to worry about which threads might cause problems to RC, we closed the threads and cut our losses. Hopefully most understood. Obviously there are others who will always find fault.

Regards,

Sorry, I can't return them.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm.

Can't say things like that on your board, let's come do it over here.

As the moderator of RC, you set a great example of how things are run over there.

I wonder how many times our moderators have gone on to the RC board to insult their members. I hope none, but I'm not sure.

 

[jamesw]

Hey Dr. Reef:

What do you mean "our moderators?"

You don't own me foo!!!!!

Cheers
James

 

[Anonymous]

Can't say things like that on your board, let's come do it over here.

Be specific. Can't say what? Or is another example of your use of inflammatory language to make a point?

As the moderator of RC, you set a great example of how things are run over there.

I didn't come over here as a moderator of RC. I came over here because I don't appreciate being called a nazi.

I wonder how many times our moderators have gone on to the RC board to insult their members.

You call us nazis, yet you feel insulted? How can that be?

 

[Anonymous]

Do you want an apology?

Because, you might want to change your tactics and tone if so.

And if you don't want an apology, then what do you want, and what are you trying to accomplish here?

I said I agreed with your decision (not that you need it or care).

I just know from what I've seen myself, and from what I've heard from others (moreso in the past than recently) that you guys are quick to squash discussion, especially when your constituents question your motives or methods. The RC mods come across as brutish sometimes, and I just perceived that reaction.

I got that impression for a reason. Maybe I did both you and I a disservice by using such inflammatory language, because it seems you've wasted considerable time adressing me, rather than the root of the problem, which is "why do people have such a perception of RC?".

 

[outerbank]

I haven't read all the posts on this or any on the closed thread, but I am very happy it was closed. If you want to DIY, buy one, take it apart, and put one togethere yourself. "Spin off" products and sales can really hurt the originater of such equipment.

Scott Lamb

 

[ReefLion]

The US patent laws prohibit someone from "inducing" another to infringe a patent. The applicable statute is 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

I have couple questions on this. I am not a laywer but am familiar with USC Title 35 and have submitted items to the USPTO before.

1. Does merely posting a plan and/or instructions generally constitute "active inducement?"
   
2. I never saw what was posted since it was deleted, but I wonder about the validity of the following line of reasoning:
   
   Either the plans and instructions posted were substantially the same as the Sea Swirl design, or they were substantially different. If the former, then posting them can not constitute an infringement since the design and instructions are substantially the same as that publicly available from the USPTO web site. If the latter, then it is a different design and therefore also not an infringement.

There are rarely clear-cut issues in patent law. Inducement covers a wide range of activities. It is a fact-intensive issue that takes in the context and circumstances of the activity. The question of "insubstantial" versus "substantial" differences is also a messy one, and one that the Supreme Court itself punted on rather than set forth a specific standard.

For the record, I am also a patent lawyer, and of course I'm also not rendering any advice on the substantive issues. If two major law firms fought this out in court (assuming the answer were worth it), it would take about 2-3 years and maybe $5-7 million, not counting the appeal.

Tim

 

[esmithiii]

I haven't read all the posts on this or any on the closed thread, but I am very happy it was closed. If you want to DIY, buy one, take it apart, and put one togethere yourself. "Spin off" products and sales can really hurt the originater of such equipment.

The issue is not with closing and deleting the original thread which contained the plans and instructions for ripping Aquarium Concepts off by building a replica of their unit, but of the deletion of the subsequent thread which explained why the original thread had been deleted. The second thread did not contain plans or instructions but was simply an explaination of why the original thread was removed and also feedback and commentary on the issue itself. IMO, the second thread should never have been removed.

 

[Mouse]

Hey, Megadeth.

Ive got some plans of my own for a sea swirl. It involves a turtle and a treadmill (so its really quiet) and a tap with a hose, oh yea.. and a big block of horsey salt.

:roll:

 

[esmithiii]

Mouse, that violates my plans on using a squirrel in a cage to move the thing around. I call it the Squirrel Swirl.

Ernie

 

[M.E.Milz]

The US patent laws prohibit someone from "inducing" another to infringe a patent. The applicable statute is 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

I have couple questions on this. I am not a laywer but am familiar with USC Title 35 and have submitted items to the USPTO before.

1. Does merely posting a plan and/or instructions generally constitute "active inducement?"
   
2. I never saw what was posted since it was deleted, but I wonder about the validity of the following line of reasoning:
   
   Either the plans and instructions posted were substantially the same as the Sea Swirl design, or they were substantially different. If the former, then posting them can not constitute an infringement since the design and instructions are substantially the same as that publicly available from the USPTO web site. If the latter, then it is a different design and therefore also not an infringement.

There are rarely clear-cut issues in patent law. Inducement covers a wide range of activities. It is a fact-intensive issue that takes in the context and circumstances of the activity. The question of "insubstantial" versus "substantial" differences is also a messy one, and one that the Supreme Court itself punted on rather than set forth a specific standard.

For the record, I am also a patent lawyer, and of course I'm also not rendering any advice on the substantive issues. If two major law firms fought this out in court (assuming the answer were worth it), it would take about 2-3 years and maybe $5-7 million, not counting the appeal.

Tim

A few follow-ups:

As to your first question, I cannot (ok, will not) comment on whether posting plans alone constitutes active inducement. But I can tell you that active inducement typically arises in situations where someone sells a kit to be assembled by the user and no infringment actaully arises until the kit is assembled, or sells a device that does not infringe unless it is actually used by someone. The latter often arises in situations where the claims of the patent are method claims.

As to you second question, the issue is not whether your diy device is similar or different from the SeaSwirl device, but whether your diy device is similar or different from what is called for in the claims of the patent. But beware, claim interpretation claim be a tricky task and is ultimately determined by the Court during litigation.

 

[randy holmes-farley]

I don't think it should surprise anyone that this issue did cause significant discussion among RC moderators, as it would at any similar board. There were a variety of divergent viewpoints on how to to deal with such an issue. I don't believe that we have even finalized what the long term plan is yet. Obviously, none of use were happy about the situation, and all of us have better things to do with our lives than get embroiled in a squabble about patent rights.

This is a VERY complicated issue.

It was pointed out that something posted might be in violation of some specific claims of a specific patent. Of course, many of the readers and posters (and moderators) do not even live within the jurisdiction of that patent.

Is one patent in one country where we have one member sufficient to close threads that might be in violation of that patent in that country?

Do we just accept the assertion of a company that posts are in violation, without spending the time and/or money to investigate to see if it really is true? Or at least likely to be true?

Do we have to proactively scan all incoming posts to determine if they are in potential violation of this or any of the other several million patents worldwide?

I hold many patents, and recognize their value. No boards should induce people to break the law. But where exactly does the line get drawn? I'm not sure this has yet been established, and it only will get established when some legal case law is put down as similar cases come to court (if they ever do). RC does not want to be the test case.

So anyone who is unhappy about the action taken by RC moderators should put themselves in our position and decide what you'd do. Bear in mind that these boards do not have money to hire lawyers to fight lawsuits, even if we were sure we'd win. That would be a great victory: for $550,000 we'd win the right to allow DIY posts about the Sea Swirl.

Of course, with that same money, we could comission 1,000 top quality articles on various aspects of reefkeeping, triple the bandwidth of RC, and maybe even have some left over for a big pizza party for all members.

 

[ErikS]

....