Intelectual Property

[Admin]

This is not to name drop or any other thing for that matter.... I noticed it brought up in another thread.. Here is my take on it...

Intellectual property by the definition I see used in the world today:
 It means absolutely nothing, Copyright means I cant photocopy something and reuse or resell it, Case proven every minute of every day in the week, the Chinese copy someones shit every day. I could see possible recourse if someone in the same country was doing so, I do not see how anything could ever become of any claim abroad.  Now morels is a different subject all together, were talking legalities here. A prime example, How can anyone tell you you cant use something you purchased for more than 1 build of that part etc.. You bought the plans, IMO you are entitled to use them as many times as you wish, I could see copying them and or reselling them for a higher value being unlawfull. Even reselling them at a lesser value, I cant see being an issue legally, Again, morrels is a different subject...

[Ozpilot]

Buying the right to use something is often called licensing.  The terms of the license dictate what you bought.  Microsoft like the idea of selling one copy of their software at a time.  Plenty of others do that too.  Means you have a full copy of the software but you only bought the right to use it on one computer (sometimes for a higher price you can buy a licence to use it on 10 or more).  Some software can be used on as many computers as you like but can only be used by one user at a time - often by use of a physical key. 

The fact that people can work out ways of copying stuff and distributing it doesn't change the terms of the license (or, in other words, what has been paid for).

I'm not expressing any opinion or saying what applies in any given circumstance - the topic has been put out there without context - I am just saying this is how it normally needs to be looked at.  It is up to the vendor to have people understand and agree to what they are buying and to enforce the licenses he sells however he pleases - that's a commercial decision.

The main thing that worries me (well ... pi$$es me off, actually) is that I can't see companies like Honda spending R&D money if they can't compete in the market place because others don't spend that money.  Companies like Honda suffer if they spend R&D money and we suffer if they don't.

[fabr]

To me the question really boils down to this-how many changes   or how substantial a change is needed before the license to anything is a moot point legally.

[Engineer]

Good point Fabr.

IMO  If someone is selling plans for their livelyhood then I would buy the plans for every car built. 

How much needs changed to not feel the need to do that is a good question.  I think if you are building said product for yourself or for sale also plays into it.

Copying and distributing the plans is wrong. Period.

[Ozpilot]

To me the question really boils down to this-how many changes   or how substantial a change is needed before the license to anything is a moot point legally.

There's probably a practical answer to that (I'll ignore the fact you put that last word "leegally" in as the legal answer would be expensive, would depend on the specific facts and may be different in different locations so I don't think that answer is going to land in this forum) - if you've changed enough to make the license a moot point then you shouldn't have bothered buying the plans in the first place because you're not using them (or at least that seems to be what your defence is).

[Boostinjdm]

I feel that if I want to build three things for myself, I'm only buying one set of plans.  Period.
Now if I was going to sell the things, I would buy several different sets of plans, study them, then draw up my own using the purchased ones for inspiration only.  Not using any actual dimensions from the purchased plans.  In my mind, there is nothing wrong with that.  Everybody get's ideas and inspiration from somewhere, even the guy selling plans for a living.

[fabr]

There's probably a practical answer to that (I'll ignore the fact you put that last word "leegally" in as the legal answer would be expensive, would depend on the specific facts and may be different in different locations so I don't think that answer is going to land in this forum) - if you've changed enough to make the license a moot point then you shouldn't have bothered buying the plans in the first place because you're not using them (or at least that seems to be what your defence is).

I see your point but I think the answer is more universal than you think here in the US. Copyright infringement is a federal case and I think license violation is also. I do believe that it may fall under the no part may be reproduced without permission clause but that's not really applicable since the plans don't really represent anything new and in fact is a copy in effect of anothers work in the first place also. S how much has to be changed on a buggy till your asss is covered against a possible judgement against you if sued?

[Ozpilot]

So now we're getting subjective.

I doubt issues would usualy arise in relation to a "buggy" - unless overall appearance is the issue (in which case I suppose the tests that would be applied would be similar to tests in music or architecture cases).  It is more likely issues would arise about a particular part of the design (suspension geometry springs to mind).  One guide that may be useful is a concept sometimes referred to as the "springboard effect" which refers to the advantage gained by using the relevant intellectual property.  If a lot of testing is avoided by using the intellectual property then it may be that the person owning the intellectual property should be compensated and/or the user should account to (or pay to) the owner the amount the user saved.  If that amount is zero then enough has been changed (maybe).

These questions are impossible to answer generically as so many considerations and variables are involved. 

And, at the end of the day, it probably all comes down to the terms of the licence to determine whether a breach has occurred - the above stuff probably relates more to how much the damages should be.

[Ozpilot]

You may also get into spare parts type territory.  Have you ever noticed its perfectly OK for after market manufacturers to make a water pump that fits and looks like the one you just wore out on your Ford or Honda?

[trojan]

As Oz pointed out firstly the issue, whether you understand it or not, is licencing.
In context, if you bought plans and produced a buggy from those plans you automatically accept the licence terms.
You CANNOT go back and then claim "doctrine of first sale" provisions AFTER accepting the licence.
If you don't agree to/with the licence, you have the common law right to return the plans, before doing anything, but you don't have the right to copy etc the plans before you do.

You may also get into spare parts type territory.  Have you ever noticed its perfectly OK for after market manufacturers to make a water pump that fits and looks like the one you just wore out on your Ford or Honda?

Licence. After market suppliers licence the "design" from the manufacturer, or they face the legal wrath of the manufacturer or they operate in China. But, manufacturers have recourse against anyone who sells unlicensed products, but they rarely take action eg: all those Honda coppies that have flooded Ebay, Lonshin etc. My personal opinion is that Honda is quietly proud of the fact they were the one coppied so prevalently...

[LiveWire]

You may also get into spare parts type territory.  Have you ever noticed its perfectly OK for after market manufacturers to make a water pump that fits and looks like the one you just wore out on your Ford or Honda?

There used to be a huge number of companies making Jeep Wrangler bodies and parts. I heard, but not confirmed, that when Chrysler bought Jeep, that stopped.

[LiveWire]

I would be interested in people opinion on a few ethics questions.

1. If company B copies company A's design, do you feel it is unethical to purchase the copied items from company B?

This one is a little more tricky
2. Buggy builder B copied their frame design from buggy builder A. Supplier 2 makes a large buggy part very similar to one from supplier 1. Supplier 1 is vocal that it is a copy. Buggy builder A prefers supplier 2's product over supplier 1's original but is concerned about the ethics of dealing with supplier 2. An additional twist is that supplier 1 is aware of the frame design issue yet sells his product to buggy builder B. Should buggy builder A buy from supplier 2?

[artie on edge]

I would be interested in people opinion on a few ethics questions.

1. If company B copies company A's design, do you feel it is unethical to purchase the copied items from company B?

This one is a little more tricky
2. Buggy builder B copied their frame design from buggy builder A. Supplier 2 makes a large buggy part very similar to one from supplier 1. Supplier 1 is vocal that it is a copy. Buggy builder A prefers supplier 2's product over supplier 1's original but is concerned about the ethics of dealing with supplier 2. An additional twist is that supplier 1 is aware of the frame design issue yet sells his product to buggy builder B. Should buggy builder A buy from supplier 2?

 

[fabr]

Awwww,shit.It still all boils down to the question of how much of a change is needed to make it legal.  Or better yet the question is how much can be protected with a claim to a right to restrict the use of a part/component that was not an original idea in the first place. There's not a single plan out there that I know of that is anything more than a variation of someone elses work  that is ever evolving.

[artie on edge]

Legal? Moral? Ethical?

I see three seperate debates here... confusing them only muddies the arguements .... why dont we pick one deal with that then go to the next one.... IMO, such activites (as have been obtusely discussed here) can be strictly legal, but are ethically suspect and then downright morally wrong ... yet still be strictly legal.....