IH plans and intellectual property

[Runner4404spd]

There has been a lot of questions on whether or not we are going to be offering plans for sale. Currently that is up in the air, we have a few potential buyers for all of our intellectual property (plans, designs and such). As such we are in limbo until those decisions are made.

this was posted on the IH website, i don't know who the companies are that are willing to buy the intellectual property, but i just wonder what it would take to make this property public knowledge. NOt saying that Aaron should give the knowledge away, but its been really helpful so far and i'd hate to lose such a resource as Aarons knowledge or his site. maybe we can take up a collection to help keep the site open or to buy the intellectual property to make it public domain so everyone can benefit from it.

maybe we can integrate it into this site (CNCZONE.com). i only bring this up before the decisions are made so all the options are covered. let me know what you guys think. And Aaron, if you see this let us know what you think about this.

[kimoyo]

As someone who just brought an LI kit, I would be a little bothered with the info for the kit available before I even recieve it.

As far upgrade plans to the ih mill (belt drive conversion, spindle changes) it would be cool if that was available for those who have the mill.

Paul

[IndHobby]

I assure all my past customers, out of respect for what you paid for your CNC conversion; I will never give away the plans free on the web.

[Runner4404spd]

i guess i was more referring to new things that aren't necessarily out yet. things like the belt drive spindle. maybe not give away all the secrets but at least give us a head start on what it takes to build it successfully. i have bought a cnc kit and mill from aaron, and i agree, i don't think that all the info should be public domain but at least leave up what you have.

i would also like to know how to set the preload on the bearings for the spindle. i know there is a slim margin on setting these up and i don't have time for the trial and error part of it. but if thats what it takes then thats what i'll do, or i'll stick with the tapered roller bearings. those are a little more forgiving.

[ViperTX]

I seriously doubt that there is any IP.

[Cruiser]

I believe that intelectual property and website are two differant entities !

[NC Cams]

Big difference between IP's, copyrights and what may be "trade secrets".

The specifications and procedures needed to build/tune the machines are essentially the owners intellectual properties. If he documents and sells them without copyrighting them, he's essentially "giving" them away and loses his copyright protection and probably his IP's.

NOTE: simply putting circle C on the document is NOT protecting crap - read the copyright law (17 U.S.C.). If you don't register them, you're basically a fool and your "copyrighted materials" pretty much become public domain.

Now, the bills of material and the specs contained therein are where the technology is critical. With this info, it is easy to duplicate the machines. Without it, you could lose countless night of sleep trying to figure out what it takes to make the machine.

Look at it like this: everybody knows what is in Coca Cola. The trade secret lies in the exact formulation of the additives that are blended to create it. Anybody can make Coke if they buy the syrup from CocaCola and mix it with carbonated water - duplicating the syrup is where the trade secret lies.

Although trade secrets are a good way to protect a device, one runs the risk of losing the rabbit if/when someone reverse engineers it and effectively duplicates the performance in a similar way - this is where a patent is handy. HOWEVER, to get a patent, you have to unveil the secret which some people can outright steal or engineer around. There is no honor at times with some patents.

Having the OEM specs faciliates the service parts duplication process - it helps even more if you try to improve upon performance (at least you know what NOT to do). The PITA parts which are going to be hard to duplicate are the "iron" or other custom made/application specific parts. These requires tools and capital which is why they are not readily duplicated in service applications.

[Richards]

There may be a misunderstanding about copyrights. Here is a quote from www.copyright.gov:

"How to Secure a Copyright
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."

The quote clearly states that registration is not necessary.

[lerman]

Assembly procedures may be copyright, but that is of little value. It is well established law (well, I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding), that recipes protect the representation, but not the list of ingredients or order of steps.

So, you can't just photocopy (whoops, I almost said Xerox) a recipe, but you can sell something with the same list of ingredients and steps.

You can't just copy someone else's plans, but if you have one, you can measure it and publish the plans. Of course, if there is a patent, you can publish the plans, but you can't make one; not even for your own use.

Ken

[Richards]

Ken,
I learned something new today. You wrote, "you can't make one; not even for your own use". I didn't know that. When I did a Google search on patents, I found that you are absolutely correct.

Thanks for your post.

[NC Cams]

Memo to Richard:

You are reading a summary of the statute. HOWEVER, and of greater importance, If you plan to take legal enforcement action against an alleged copyright infringer, YOU MUST HAVE AQUIRED OR AT LEAST REGISTERED FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTIION. DON"T READ THE SUMMARY, READ THE STATUTE!!!

I don't recall the specific statutory clause, HOWEVER, there definitely is one that addresses this important, little known statutory requirement of US Copyright Law enforcement proviso's. I think this stipulation is found in 17 U.S.C 203 or around that statute nearby.

BTW: the defendant's lawyer tried to ge the case tossed out of court on my "baseless claims" that a failure to register wasn't grounds for a suit. My FORMER lawyer said that my argument wouldn't fly as the guy didn't have to register the C/R for it to be enforceble.

Unfortunately for defendant, the legal argument/filing that I wrote (never spent a day in law school) were found valid by the judge and both my FORMER lawyer and the defendant's still are shaking their head wondering "duh, HUH????"

Read the statute, not the Cliff Notes' Summary. You'll learn more than what they tought the lawyers in law school.

The federal judge agreed to hear the case and said that his court DID have jurisdiction for the reasons claimed. Namely, the guy's failure to seek C/R protection in a/the proper fashion as prescribed by law. Both my FORMER lawyer and the guy's lawyer were shocked that an engineer could make such a convincing argument to a federal judge.

[NC Cams]

Oops sorry, wrong statute was mentioned previously:

First go here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html

Then read down to and focus on section 411b which deals with "Registration and Infringment Action" and I quote:

17 USC 411b = " No action for the infringment of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

Threaten all you want but if you decide to go to court, you'll likely lose your ass without a formally registered copyright. The statute goes on to outline and/or limit liability if/when a proper or improper copyright protection is claimed or granted or recognized. You don't have to register immediately BUT if you don't you could drastically limit any remedies that could/will be granted if you wait too long before registering the C/R.

IF you think for a minute that you've got federal copyright protection simply by saying a work is copyrighted - you are are flat wrong. Read the ENTIRE formal statute, not just the Cliff Note summary!!!

Yes, you own the intellectual property but actual proof of ownership in federal court of an intellectual propety is recognized via copyright registration, not whether or not you merely claim copyright protection for something that isn't registered.

There are more interesting facts in the law that copyright holders and/or potential infringers need to be aware of.

We're proving that there are a lot of misconceptions with each filing in our particular case - especially when a pro se (without legal counsel) litigant can and have their arguments prevail over the filings of real live copyright lawyers.