patent ethics, (Micromark Ethics followup)

[tankist]

original thread was closed, which perhaps is a good thing.
but somewhere there "you should have patented it" was mentioned.

while stealing idea is not nice, are those tools really a patent material?
and if MM wants to build those tools why shouldn't they? you can't patent a hammer, and if you are in hammer making business, can you really be upset about other companies also making hammers?
but i guess competing is much harder then just receiving patent royalties...


sorry for the rant. its just that i feel those copyright and patent ideas are way outdated and stiffing innovation. the patent procedure needs to be updated to new realities asap.

 

[blownoutcylinder]

An author up here by the name of John Ralston Saul did put out the issue of patents and intellectual property rights within the current globalist system as strangling innovation---

The problem seems to be driven by a need to derive revenue from non traditional sources. Licensing can be problematic in this precisely because of this.

But we also have to be careful here---I've seen an increase in counterfeiting in the electronics industry over the past few years as well---as well as the patenting issues we have the other side of the coin---the counterfeiter---

Making the rest of us do stuff---

 

[kenw]

it would be wise to read up on some basic patent law. Hammers are at this point an existing technology and therefore cannot be patented. New and novel tools to do the same thing are patentable and many are. Most never see the light of day as they are not worthy of production. You can still trademark and copyright all sorts of stuff involving hammers.

It is my opinion (as one who has worked on numerous patentable and patented devices) that the tools in the previous thread were patentable. But my opinion is of little real value since I'm not the US Patent Office.

Now having said that, actually spending the $$ to patent them becomes a business decision. In many cases the costs to protect yourself is simply overshadowed by the ability to get a product on the market quickly, wring the profit from it that you can and go on to the Next Big Idea.

You cannot patent something that you've already released to the market nor that you've advertised. Since patents can take years to get, often it is best from a business standpoint to just ignore it and get the bucks while they can be had. Time to market!

And speaking of couterfeiters: they've never been bothered by the existence of a patent or copyright or trademark. Slapping a patent on something isn't going to slow them down one bit.

 

[Rico]

You're right you can't patent a hammer... but you can patent a specific type of hammer.
Patents are tricky things, not to mention pricey.
They do run out in time, giving the original inventor the opportunity to reap the rewards of his or her efforts before hand.
I still feel queasy when I discuss a product to a company despite it having a patent pending, all they have to do is create a similar item and I'm out big time. It's happened before.
As I have found from experiance ethics are second to dollars unfortunately.

 

[blownoutcylinder]

Counterfeiters never do believe in patents or anything else for that matter--but it does not help that the laws have become more problematic overall in some fields. I've run across some electronic parts that were even shipped--peppered as it were--along with the original pieces. So one has to be very watchful in this regard----

Then, of course, there is the perpetual circle thing going with counter counter lawsuits over lawsuits over legacy patents----

 

[Selector]

Thank goodness Ford didn't patent 'the automobile'. We'd be in a different place if he had.

Ethics, unfortunately, are routed as much in custom and in law from culture-to-culture as they are from universally recognized ideals or values. Religion, or areligious codes, can influence customs and morality. So, ethics tends to be dependent upon the context or the culture. It runs from the extremes of ethical subjective relativism (what I want is reality, and I define what I want) to imposed codes to which all within a confines must adhere on penalty of death, and that would be absolutist objectivism found in oligarchies where a few hold all the aces and get to say what goes (think Taliban), or in autocracies.

Here, we value the law which is increasingly reliant on general popularity oin a judicial system...or, at least, that is the intent. A judiciary that is somewhat responsive to changes in values at the same time that it reflects the absolutes imposed by law. Part of The Law is Patent Law, just as Morality is a subset of the greater field of Ethics. If patent law is quite clear about proprietary interests, and the limits to such interests, and one party makes no definable incursion into a product line protected by patent(s), then there isn't much else to do but find something else to market that is patentable...and actually do it.

I don't see anything really wrong with what MM has done. If they are free to replicate, and even to improve, on a device, and if they have the cojones and pockets to make a go of it, why the heck not?

This should at least serve as a lesson to people who invest a great deal of time and other resources into their products.

-Crandell

 

[blownoutcylinder]

Crandell You raised an interesting point---something that is seen a lot in the arts any more---look at the on going things around many of the earlier blues and jazz musicians and the record companies back then--and what is occuring in the music industry today.

People should check out the history behind that---

 

[tankist]

well the thing that Ford didn't do, the Wright brothers sertainly tried to pull off. mr. Curtiss sertainly had to work hard to try and find a way around "flying machine" patent. and what a result - during WWI US had NO plausible aircraft whatsoever despite being pioneers in flight. ironic and very very sad.
letigious Wrights almost took out US advantage altogether. can you imagine bigger red flag "something needs to be done with patent system" then that? and yet here we are in 2009.

while counterfieters are sertainly a problem, abusive patend holders are no better...

group of people i know got caught up in this mess. they put everything they had on the line and opened a workshop to build their idea. i know for sure they haven't stole the idea. the only thing that saved them is the fact one of the brothers got done with the bar exam and quickly respesialized into patent lawyer. after the first round cour things, the pattent squatters realized this one will not be a sure win and reduced the effort. but even today, several years later i understand that he is still working part time on their case. can you imagine how much human effort and nerves were wasted on this? and thats just for one stupid motorcycle accesory.
if we talking closer to home, there is the story of JMRI project. reading about their turmoil leaves this feeling of gross unfairness. people just wanted to make a thing of their compassion and there is the bloody leach. i'm sure there are countless others...

i understand this is something that no matter how much i type not going to change, but still felt like ranting on the topic.
appologies

 

[IronBeltKen]

One unfortunate thing about patent law is that it seems to favor those with deeper pockets.

I work for an organization that does a large amount of inventing and patent filing (and no, I am NOT one of the inventors ). I once attended a presentation by one of our patent attorneys, one thing I remember clearly that he said was: Merely having your invention patented is not enough - you have to have the resources to defend it. If you're a one-man operation with a shop in your garage, even if you have tons of documentation and the 'facts' are on your side, some unscrupulous large corporation could keep challenging your patent in court. You might be able to hire a lawyer to help you in the first go-round, but the corporation can keep coming up with repeated challenges and dragging you back into court. The lawyers' fees, which may be mere pocket change to the Corporation, could eventually force a private inventor into bankruptcy. This is one of the reasons many small-time inventors will sell their ideas to larger organizations for what seems like a pittance - they figure they might as well get some compensation for their effort rather than have it forcibly stolen from them.

 

[UP2CSX]

Anyone who has ever been to Hong Kong will know how effective patent, copyright, and trademark laws are. Great deals on "Rolex" watches.

There was, in fact, a long running attempt to patent the automobile. Google the "Selden Patent" if you want some interesting reading.

My feeling is that patent issues should be left to lawyers and the courts, not trade associations. To my knowledge, the only place you can get injunctive or penalty relief is from a court. Anything anyone has to say about this is just so much hot air.

 

[joem5127]

The other thing to consider about patents and trademarks is they are worthless unless you intend to spend the money it takes to enforce them. The legal fees for doing this can eat up a small company, witch nearly all model railroad suppliers are.

 

[Jon NFL]

and another breath of hot air )
Due diligence is the buyers responsibility. Knowing that the items are or are not protected and adjusting the purchase price accordingly up to the buyer.

 

[blownoutcylinder]

In the electronics industry the supply chain is now becoming much more diligent with suppliers complying with specific codes and methods of compliance checking. These new steps are taking a lot of the heat off the issue of counterfeit parts that are plaguing the industry on so many levels.

One thing that the customer/client is also now doing is going through known suppliers who are ISO registered. This cuts down the chance that you end up with parts that are either counterfeit/pirated or just plain repros.

 

[68 Camaro]

As someone who has worked in the food manufacturing business for better than 25 years, I have seen how food manufacturers including the company I work for, produce the same item under ten different labels going to ten different customers. The only thing changing on the production line is the packaging material. As a result we make money whether you purchase product A or product B since we make both.

The idea of the hammer provides a suitable example. A handfull of companies are making hammers for Ace Hardware, Target, Walmart....etc. The cost to the consumer is determined by a companies (Walmarts) buying power.

It's unfortunate that NWSL did not not patent their tooling. Would it have made a difference? Who knows. NWSL could have produced this under any number of of different names themselves or sold it to MM with slight changes to the product or packaging and reduced the cost. You shouldn't have to compete with yourself, but unfortunately it is a dog eat dog world.

Larry

 

[Cjcrescent]

Fellas;

Thank you all for the opinions and comments. As I had said in the original posting, all I wanted was honest opinions, which I have got.

Thank you all.

 

[Espeefan]

Want one more? Those tools are all decades old and even if originally patented, the patents would have expired long ago. Remember when Intermountain wanted to put Kadees in their kits and Kadee balked, and wanted them in Kadee packaging, and in general made such a stink that IM just made their own plastic Kadee knock-offs? Those things were a disaster, but look how many Kadee clones we have now, and Kadee still has the lions share of the aftermarket couplers market. If he does not go through the MMR program because the Micro Mark guy is, he's sorta cutting off his nose to spite his face don't you think? NWSL is solid, and has a loyal following, myself included. This might be irritating, but it will pass. Breathe deep...remain calm!

 

[jeffrey-wimberly]

Patents also protect the consumer. Look at what happened when the patents on Kadee couplers ran out. Suddenly the market is flooded with cheap knock-offs that are advertised to be just as good when they are not.

 

[tankist]

Patents also protect the consumer. Look at what happened when the patents on Kadee couplers ran out. Suddenly the market is flooded with cheap knock-offs that are advertised to be just as good when they are not.

you have some strange understanding of what "consumer protection" meant then. As i see it is it means protecting consumers from companies abusing their dominant position (exclusive patent holders). not ensuring only high quality stuff sees the market.

the fact it is KD who held the patent did not influence the quality, it is the goal to reach quality that did. in theory nothing prevents from competition to build more expensive "high quality knock offs". . KD's could have very well focused on building cheap low quality couplers and have other manufacturers blocked out of the market with their patent. where is the protection then?




but to the subj,
even if NWSL does build higher quality stuff the tools in question "riveter" and "chopper" are not unique. i don't see any invention there that is worth a patent. "your usual, everyday press but in small size" is not an invention. (but then i'm sure there is a way to sneak it into the patent office )
so in my opinion any other company should be able to build a cheaper knock off if it is their business decision to do so. you don't hear Bosch complaining that Skill or Ryoby builds cheap knock of their cordless drills. there is market to both low quality and higher end products.
thats consumer protection

 

[MGWSY]

Patents also protect the consumer. Look at what happened when the patents on Kadee couplers ran out. Suddenly the market is flooded with cheap knock-offs that are advertised to be just as good when they are not.

You are correct BUT once people try the clones 95% will go back to Kadee's either way so its no big deal. The only good thing is now you can take a RTR car out of the box and actually use it instead of waiting to put Kadee couplers on it. I know that no matter what kind of couplers my trains come with they all get Kadee Scale couplers be it #58, #153, #156, or #119's along with Intermountain, Branchline, or Reboxx Semi Scale wheels.

 

[jeffrey-wimberly]

I was referring to people being subjected to cheap copies of a known product. I've seen other cases where company X made a very good product. Company Y comes along and copies it down to the last detail except for quality.