Issues with patents...

[Gaspergoo]

I have been working on a design for some time now, and just found a boat similar to my idea. Assuming they have a patent on their hull, where is the line drawn when it comes to this? Obviously my design is not identical to theirs, but should I be concerned? Does a patent only protect them from someone popping a mold off of their product? or the concept in general. I do not plan to produce it for selling purposes any time soon, but would just like to know this before I continue. THanks

Travis

[Pericles]

If it's Hinckley, have caution. According to Jacques Mertens in a discussion on his forum about his LB26 design.

"10 years ago, Hinckley sued a dozen of boatbuilders for using the name "picnic boat" or "picnic launch" and for imitating the "look and feel" of their boats. The lawsuits were ridiculous with experts comparing the radius of a windshield . . . It has calmed down now......."

Vicem Yachts had such a difficulty. See "Made in Turkey" article in http://www.proboat-digital.com/proboat/200608/

Pericles

[Nojjan]

If you are not trying to produce a commercial product, i.e to sell it as you put it, don't worry. You may copy any patent if it is for private, individual use. The problem occurs if you try to market it as "your concept".

[catsketcher]

I am not a lawyer but have researched patents pretty thoroughly as I have a few underway at the moment. Everyone must respect a patent, or can be held accountable in court. It doesn't matter if you are a commmercial builder or an amateur if the patent is in force in that country. That being said most builders do not patent their designs.

Research design patents - try Espace or the USPTO and search them with reference to your own design. Remember that by respecting patents, inventors get a little of the cost of coming up with new designs that eventually, we can all use.

Designing your own boat has many drawbacks. If someone has done much the same job and has done all the thinking about it and their designs have good resale it would be wise to buy a design from them rather than go on your own. You would get the plans price back many times in resale.

cheers

Phil Thompson

[Nojjan]

I am arguing from a practical perspective. The inventor (who has the patent) may sue you and ask for compensation based on the income you have accumulated by breaking the patent. Having built the product for private use, there is no money to be had, therefore you need not worry. Don't try to go into business with a questionable invention, that can prove costly. I think it is only in France and Austria where you can go to jail for patent infringement.

[Guest625101138]

Setting up patents is a time consuming and expensive business. The assumprion that the design is patented is a big one. What part of it is patented? What are the claimed benefits?

If you have arrived at something similar through independent thought then it is your product. Could be hard to prove but you may even have priority. Easy to prove if you have something in the public domain such as this forum.

On the other hand if you have copied then there is a moral issue. I don't think you have a legal issue unless you make commercial gain from the idea/design.

What is the idea? Or are you aiming to patent some aspect.

Rick W.

[Gaspergoo]

Well like I said, this would originally be for private use, but I considered going into production possible in the future. Here is what happened; I had a few drawings that I had been playing around with sometime at my house. A friend was looking at them and said,"Hey these look like a boat I have seen before." The boat is Majek Illusion. This is a shallow water fishing boat. Not really what this site is about, but I figured if anyone knew it would be someone on this forum. Majek is a relatively small company based out of here in TX i believe. Obviously my design is not exactly the same as theirs, but the concept is similar. Plus there is no "ground breaking" technology in the ideas behind that boat or mine. There are numerous boats on the market that have the same basic shape, but the only ones I have heard of having lawsuits was when a particular company (Shallow Sport) popped a mold off of a Boston Whaler Lo-pro. Shallow sport is still producing this boat so I image nothing ever came from the lawsuit. Even if it is totally legal, I do not want to be looked at as the guy that ripped off someone elses design. I guess I will just have to go back to square one and make it even better. Thanks

Travis

[marshmat]

I was just looking at the Majek Illusion. I don't see anything in its hull form that would be considered sufficiently ground-breaking as to be worthy of a patent; there are a lot of other builders doing more or less the same thing.
Looking like something else is not a crime; all flats boats look more or less alike. What is illegal (in my neck of the woods at least) is knowingly duplicating a technology that is covered by a patent, which very few boat hulls are, or directly copying another design without its designer's permission ("splashing" in boatbuilder lingo). If you did your drawings yourself, independently, without referring to the blueprints or hull of the Majek, your design should be perfectly legal.

[Gaspergoo]

Cool, thanks for the info. My ideas are still a long way from being produced, so I am sure they will change over time.

[alan white]

Design patents for hulls are notoriously difficult to protect if they involve no original and unique characteristics. A unique characteristic might be a quadruple fin keel or a saw-tooth profile to the underbelly. A simple shape will always be too approachable by accident. All boats are the "same as others" if you were to line them up in the right order and walk past them. The transition would be almost impossible to detect.
Hinkley's silly "Picnic Boat" lawsuit might even have a better chance of success, though it really is sad when a company has to openly admit that it has more faith in its marketing department's ability to hypnotize people with names than to let its product quality speak for itself.
Any case, patent infringement in the legal sense has little to do with lawsuits---- people often sue because they have money and rightly or wrongly think they are right.
The important thing to consider is not whether you have no legal standing, but whether you are likely to piss someone off who has money. Build your boat and don't look back. If it's not identical, and you have worked hard to achieve an original set of lines, go for it. This is similar to building a house. Who would worry about finding a pleasing design and building something similar?

Alan

[Raggi_Thor]

I find it very hard to understand the differences between some patent.
Take a look at this rudder patent discussion,
How long does a patent last?

To me it looks like Hunter Marine in the US and the Norwegian designer Birger Kullmann have similar patents. So if I make another variant, will they both sue me, and not each other? btw, I emailed both, and no one answered the question. Hunter answered that they had forwarded it to the design group.

Some patents are also very general.
Jan Herman Linge patented the hollow in a V bottom speed boat, it's filled with water for stability at rest and it's emptied through the stern when you start planing. At least this feature was marketed as "patented" in Norway. When I search now, I find this very similar patent, http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3503358

So, it's a fine line!

[Raggi_Thor]

Originally Posted by alan white

Design patents for hulls are notoriously difficult to protect ...

Here is one attempt!
I find it quite amusing

From http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4217845

.....
What is claimed is:
1. An owner trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull of length about 20 feet and beam about 8 feet including an outer shell contoured to provide, relative to a design waterline,
a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form, with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design waterline and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that the waterline beam without ballasting is about 63 inches and the waterline beam when the hull is water ballasted is about 70 inches, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
2. An owner trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull including an outer shell contoured to provide relative to
a design waterline, a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form,
with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design water line and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that the deadrise angle at the design waterline maximum beam is about 30 degrees, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
3. A trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull including an outer shell contoured to provide, relative to
a design waterline, a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form, with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design water line and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that, without ballasting, the waterline beam is about 90% of the waterline beam when ballasted, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
......

[alan white]

Originally Posted by Raggi_Thor

Here is one attempt!
I find it quite amusing

From http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4217845

.....
What is claimed is:
1. An owner trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull of length about 20 feet and beam about 8 feet including an outer shell contoured to provide, relative to a design waterline,
a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form, with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design waterline and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that the waterline beam without ballasting is about 63 inches and the waterline beam when the hull is water ballasted is about 70 inches, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
2. An owner trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull including an outer shell contoured to provide relative to
a design waterline, a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form,
with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design water line and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that the deadrise angle at the design waterline maximum beam is about 30 degrees, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
3. A trailerable displacement hull sailboat comprising:

a hull including an outer shell contoured to provide, relative to
a design waterline, a V-bottomed displacement hull shape with substantial displacement in relation to wetted surface;
a dismountable mast for supporting sails to drive said hull;
a retractable keel element located at the hull centerline for providing lateral resistance to leeway during sailing;
within said shell, sealed structural wall elements which form, with said shell, a pair of ballast tank spaces, one on either side of the hull with a walkway between them, the essential bulk of the tank spaces being below the design waterline of the hull shape; and
inlet means through the bottom of said shell below said design waterline for filling said tank spaces to admit sea water from outside the shell, the weight of the unballasted boat being sufficient to sink the hull to the design water line and essentially fill said tank spaces, the V-ing of the hull bottom being such that, without ballasting, the waterline beam is about 90% of the waterline beam when ballasted, whereby ballasting adds substantial form stability to the hull.
......

Yeah, sure is ridiculous----- like naming things means owning the idea. It seems like the patent office doesn't understand the state of the art and is relying on published prior art alone. This would be similar to awarding a patent for a new method of putting pants on based on research of archives.
It is almost guaranteed that people have been doing the obvious for centuries (lifting leg A while lowering pants grasped in hands B and C, etc.).
Does the first guy to describe the process own it? Do we all then pay a royalty to him each morning or risk prosecution?
Basically, this is a problem of poor engineering people in our country. College educated, but no real life experience. Everything from the book.

Alan

[Raggi_Thor]

Well, it's the same in "life sciences", organisms, plants, processes etc developed by nature or God if you like, are now being patented.

[Bergalia]

Originally Posted by Raggi_Thor

Well, it's the same in "life sciences", organisms, plants, processes etc developed by nature or God if you like, are now being patented.

I'll go one better Raggi - there's a bloke here in Australia (NSW) who actually applied for - and was awarded a patent on 'the wheel'. Luckily he was just 'taking the piss' to prove that no-one had thought of it earlier...