Request for information on legal topics

[JonFrum]

Or maybe to (GASP!) actually come up with a new circuit instead of ripping someone else off, that way, you don't ever have to worry about a damn thing...

Then again, you still need to do a patent search to see whether your "new" circuit is really so new. And if a prior patent holder thinks you are, in fact, violating his patent, you still may be subject to a lawsuit.     

If you can't pay the pot, don't play the hand.

[puretube]

even (so-called) "big people" manufacturing in the utmost far east
but selling in the near west,
are balancing on a VERY thin wire...

(there are 9 million bicycles in Bejing...)

and: stage-biking IS a fact... :

[Jay Doyle]

Then again, you still need to do a patent search to see whether your "new" circuit is really so new. And if a prior patent holder thinks you are, in fact, violating his patent, you still may be subject to a lawsuit.     

True in a theorhetical sense, but I doubt many of us are in danger of coming up with something patent worthy. All of the circuits that we use have been in the public domain pretty much since their inception. We basically either use textbook circuits, or abuse them. This hobby isn't rocket science. In my humble opinion, I have not seen a single FX circuit since I started this hobby that I would consider patentable, not that it couldn't happen (see the PB+J sandwhich with the crust removed in the patent database), but the claim of patent violation probably wouldn't hold up in court, there are so many examples of prior use...

In my opinion, patents are not an issue for us here 99% of the time, it is trademark and copyright violations that we should be most concerned with...

If you can't pay the pot, don't play the hand.

In complete agreement there...

[JonFrum]

Jay

I assume you're unfamiliar with Randall Smith's patent foolishness? There's a difference between what should be patent-able and what Is given a patent by the recent college grads in Washington. And since Randall's pockets are far deeper than mine - wait, I have holes in my pockets! - it doesn't matter whether the circuit can be found in a fifty year old book. I can't afford to be in the same room with a lawyer, much less pay one.

As a practical matter, you're still probably right - it will never matter for most of us. But then most of us wouldn't be asking the questions in the first place. For those actually considering a commercial effort, they'd be better off talking to a lawyer in the beginning, and if they can't afford it, then they can't afford to do business.

[Jay Doyle]

Jay

I assume you're unfamiliar with Randall Smith's patent foolishness? There's a difference between what should be patent-able and what Is given a patent by the recent college grads in Washington. And since Randall's pockets are far deeper than mine - wait, I have holes in my pockets! - it doesn't matter whether the circuit can be found in a fifty year old book. I can't afford to be in the same room with a lawyer, much less pay one.

As a practical matter, you're still probably right - it will never matter for most of us. But then most of us wouldn't be asking the questions in the first place. For those actually considering a commercial effort, they'd be better off talking to a lawyer in the beginning, and if they can't afford it, then they can't afford to do business.

Oh yeah, I am quite familiar with Mr. Smith's foolishness. I tried to emphasize it, but I guess it didn't come out that way, but I tried to make my statements appear to apply to ONLY the FX world.

The Amp world? There are some awfully touchy people over there and because of the financial outlay that amp building requires, it pretty much guarantees that they have the coin to get a lawyer. I wouldn't ever delve into that.

Personally, if I had a 50 year old textbook of the circuit and was getting sued by a patent holder, I'd skip the lawyer, and just carry the book and it's publication data into the courtroom (or into the first meeting with the patent holder's lawyer). Because if that didn't work, no lawyer would be able to (affordably) help. But that is just me.

[R.G.]

In my humble opinion, I have not seen a single FX circuit since I started this hobby that I would consider patentable, not that it couldn't happen

I think that the use of a reversed diode for bias in the Millenium Bypass was.  It was novel, not obvious to one skilled in the art, and a useful combination of pre-existing parts or materials. That's why I made it public quickly - so someone else did not patent it and exclude us from using it.

[Doug_H]

I think the value of patents, esp in this industry has been vastly inflated. This is due to abusers like Smith et. al. and the fact that the patent office can't discern the uniqueness of an idea anymore (if ever???). IMO this makes a patent not worth the paper it's printed on. Given the way the court systems work I would guess that they offer theoretical protection at best. Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling or helps you sleep better at night, but practically speaking, anyone with enough money & lawyers can steal from you and protect it in the courts.

I think that the best advice would be to tell everyone to do your own artwork (PCB layouts, schematics and enclosure artwork) and come up with a non-derivative name for the effect.

Or maybe to (GASP!) actually come up with a new circuit instead of ripping someone else off, that way, you don't ever have to worry about a damn thing...

Now that's crazy talk, Jay. I'm gonna have to report this thread to the moderator... "Oh Moderator! Moderator! Jay is chewing gum, talking and cutting in line!"

[R.G.]

Given the way the court systems work I would guess that they offer theoretical protection at best. Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling or helps you sleep better at night, but practically speaking, anyone with enough money & lawyers can steal from you and protect it in the courts.

Correct.

Which leads back to another of Lazarus Long's observations, which I paraphrase as - you do not really own anything you cannot defend.

Think about it.

[Jay Doyle]

In my humble opinion, I have not seen a single FX circuit since I started this hobby that I would consider patentable, not that it couldn't happen

I think that the use of a reversed diode for bias in the Millenium Bypass was.  It was novel, not obvious to one skilled in the art, and a useful combination of pre-existing parts or materials. That's why I made it public quickly - so someone else did not patent it and exclude us from using it.

Good point. That one wasn't in my head because, to be honest, I've never used it...

Plus, I think that this would be the exception that proves the rule.

[The Tone God]

Sorry if I will come across as a bit of a thread ogre but...

This thread is not intended to have a legal debate so please keep it to information.

Getting things back on track I think some common questions would be:

How do I know if something is copyright/trademark/patent protected ?

How do I avoid infringing on someone's copyright/trademark/patent ?

What if I am approached by someone threating legal action ?

Could I use my personal lawyer ?

What kind of lawyer should I use ?

Where do I find a lawyer ?

What can I do to help myself win ?

Yes I know some of questions are obvious but finding quotable sources would be more effective IMHO.

Andrew

[puretube]

Thanks!

I myself (standing on the other/opposite side of the aforementioned statements in various posts),

had to find the answers to exactly these questions...