design patents?

[mauisailor]

The description of the 118 Wally Power mentions the design of the deck superstructure, air inlets, and vertical bow are protected by international patent.

http://www.wally.com/WALLYPower/118.html

A patent for vertical bow? Catamarans, both sail and power had them for years. No?

Very interesting link!

Related is this thread posted by Scott a while back http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...p?threadid=201 about Hinckley trademarking an “overall appearance”. I also find this issue interesting because it is a difficult balance. On one hand, if someone does a lot of R&D work to create something really unique, I don’t think competitors should be able to come in and simply steal the idea and make the money for someone else’s work. On the other hand though, since many, many designs aren’t way out in left field, but instead are part of the mainstream based on influences from a long history of designs and connected with many other contemporary designs in a web of design influences, where is the line drawn between a unique design and rest of the design context? Where is the line drawn which can separate a design out and place it off limits, pulling it from the greater context? While Hinckley sought to trademark something broad (where the danger would be that a whole style based on a long history of design would be now off-limits for other designers) this is equally if not more controversial in that a feature or a group of features, none in themselves unique, could be taken from the design pool. Of course, maybe they’re just being general on their web site and the actual patent is much much more specific, making it a non issue. But I would hate to have to say ‘well this design really would work well with a straight vertical bow, but wait, so and so patented/trademarked that so I’ll have to do the second best thing, even though every element of my own unique design process points to that conclusion – it’s off limits.

[Stephen Ditmore]

Many classic raceboats had vertical bows, as does the Phil Bolger design at
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...p?threadid=341
So there must be more to the claim than that. The standard is that it must be both original and "unobvious." Check it out using www.delphion.com, and if you think their patent doesn't stand up to scrutiny, build one, and if they threaten to sue tell 'em you'll see them in court!

(note: if their patent is a design patent and not a utility patent, it only protects the appearance. You cannot build an aesthetically identical copy.)

[Stephen Ditmore]

Let me try that link again:
http://www.delphion.com/

[Willallison]

I would tend to agree with Stephen - either there is a lot more to the patent than their advertising blurb suggests, or it must simply be a design patent. If not, then I'm in a lot of trouble!!
So are the like of Pearson Yachts, with their new True North 38 - looks like a vertical bow to me.......(see www.pearsonyachts.com )

[sailor7]

Ran across this today:

Maverick files copycat suit against Pro-Line

Maverick Boat Co. Inc. is suing another Florida boatbuilder under the 1998 federal Vessel Hull Design Protection Act — the so-called hull splashing law.

The Fort Pierce, Fla.-based manufacturer of Maverick and Hewes flats boats and Pathfinder bay boats filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Sarasota, Fla.-based American Marine Holdings Inc. AMH manufactures Pro-Line Boats in Homosassa, Fla., and Donzi Marine boats in Sarasota.

The suit was filed March 22 and seeks $500,000 in damages. The case involves the Pathfinder 2200V and the Pro-Line 22 Bay Boat, which Maverick charges is a direct copy of its Pathfinder.

The federal law, passed after years of debate, is intended to protect original hull designs from copying or “splashing” of the boat hull by a competitor. The term “splashing” is derived from the practice of creating a boat by spraying the hull of an existing boat with fiberglass to create a mold, and then producing a finished fiberglass copy.

Maverick president Scott Deal says his company first began hearing from dealers several months ago that Pro-Line was using the Pathfinder design. He said he held a teleconference in September with American Marine’s Lee Kimmell, chairman and CEO, and Mike Collins, president, to try to resolve the issue.

“It was kind of disgusting,” he says. “They never once said they didn’t do it. They said they’ve talked to their attorney and said there was nothing we could do.”

Deal said American Marine was served with the court papers last week.

“It’s unfortunate,” he says. “We’re in the boat manufacturing business, not the litigation business.”

Neither Kimmell nor Collins could be reach for comment this morning.

“The bottom line is they did it,” Deal insists. “We hired an independent expert to verify that their product was derived from our product.”

Deal says Maverick contacted all of ProLine’s dealers to alert them to the splashing allegation.

“It’s not just the manufacturer that’s liable,” he said. “The dealers actually share in the liability if they knowingly sell a product that was knocked off. They’re in the food chain.”

— Melanie Winters

"Following comments from dealers and vendors that the Pro-Line design seemed to mirror the Pathfinder, the company hired an independent design expert to verify.

Deal said the Pro-Line boat "definitely appears to be the fruit of our design."

Pro-Line took the Pathfinder 22 and shortened and lengthened it creating 20, 22 and 24 foot models, which were all variations of Maverick's hull, added Deal."

"The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act protects hull designs from being copied by other boatbuilders. The law defines copyright infringement as "any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter without the consent of the owner of the protected design."

These quotes are from: http://www.boating-industry.com/news...e=4&N_ID=30719

Of course this is only one side of the story.

"American Marine Holdings Inc., the manufacturer of Donzi and Pro-Line boats, says it will fully contest a so-called copycat lawsuit filed by Maverick Boat Co. Inc.

“It’s in the hands of the lawyers,” said Lee Kimmell, chairman and CEO of American Marine. “We will defend ourselves vigorously.”

Kimmell said he could not comment beyond that because of the impending litigation."

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/Today_...ay_s_news.html

"In summary, the Vessel Hull law will provide protection for hull shape and decks from the time of market entry. The new law will exclude protection of features that are dictated solely by function, while allowing for protection of variations that do not serve to give a functional competitive advantage. The Copyright Office will administer the law. Registration will be required under the new law within two years of the time a product enters the market, or by registration before market entry."

http://www.fryer.com/vhdparp.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...50PWwMP:e1352:

H.R.2696

`Sec. 1201. Designs protected (a) DESIGNS PROTECTED-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The designer or other owner of an original design of a useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter.

`(2) VESSEL HULLS- The design of a vessel hull, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under this chapter, notwithstanding section 1202(4).

…

`(1) A design is `original' if it is the result of the designer's creative endeavor that provides a distinguishable variation over prior work pertaining to similar articles which is more than merely trivial and has not been copied from another source.

`(2) A `useful article' is a vessel hull, including a plug or mold, which in normal use has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article which normally is part of a useful article shall be deemed to be a useful article.

…

`Sec. 1202. Designs not subject to protection

`Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is--

`(1) not original;

`(2) staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary;

`(3) different from a design excluded by paragraph (2) only in insignificant details or in elements which are variants commonly used in the relevant trades;

`(4) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies it; or

`(5) embodied in a useful article that was made public by the designer or owner in the United States or a foreign country more than 1 year before the date of the application for registration under this chapter.