A kayak as a mold

[nitsuj]

Originally Posted by Nurb

By condoning splashing you shift the economic benefit towards those willing to steal other people's work and away from those doing the research and development.

I do condon splashing a kayak so long as it is not patent protected, which is a very likely case.

In the scenario you proposed, the original business that developed a kayak design (and spent 3 years???) is not protecting its intangible assets via patents/trademarks/copyrights. Being so foolish with money, I'd suggest having the physical kayak design stolen by a more competent producer is beneficial for all. Since maybe next round the R&D company would put resources into protecting its intangible assets from competitors, and in turn protecting investments poured into developing an invention.

If the R&D company had protected its intangible assets, there would be recourse.

[Jeremy Harris]

Originally Posted by nitsuj

I do condon splashing a kayak so long as it is not patent protected, which is a very likely case.

In the scenario you proposed, the original business that developed a kayak design (and spent 3 years???) is not protecting its intangible assets via patents/trademarks/copyrights. Being so foolish with money, I'd suggest having the physical kayak design stolen by a more competent producer is beneficial for all. Since maybe next round the R&D company would put resources into protecting its intangible assets from competitors, and in turn protecting investments poured into developing an invention.

If the R&D company had protected its intangible assets, there would be recourse.

Have you any idea how much it costs a designer to register, patent and fight against infringement? The simple answer is that the way laws are structured at the moment, few small businesses can afford to either protect their designs from theft in the first place, or defend them if they have protected them in some way.

I have personal experience of this, as a patent holder. A patent is essentially of little value to a small business that cannot afford the tens of thousands it costs to fight infringement.

The bottom line is that only big companies can afford to use the legal protection methods available. The majority of small boat designs come from designers working as sole traders, essentially just feeding their families by their endeavours, or they come from small companies, employing maybe a handful of staff. One of my patents was infringed many years ago by a large company and there was nothing I could practically do about it. The legal cost of even an initial challenge would have been more than my house was worth, so defending what was legally mine was completely impractical.

[srimes]

Originally Posted by nitsuj

I do condon splashing a kayak so long as it is not patent protected, which is a very likely case.

Why do you keep talking about patents? You're just being obtuse. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act is what's applicable here.

This only provides protection for 10 years. So if the boat (kayak) is at least 10 years old there's no legal reason it can't be copied.

If it is an old design I don't have a moral problem with copying it. There has to be some reasonable time period after which it isn't protected. Where that line is is very debatable.

[nitsuj]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Harris

Have you any idea how much it costs a designer to register, patent and fight against infringement? The simple answer is that the way laws are structured at the moment, few small businesses can afford to either protect their designs from theft in the first place, or defend them if they have protected them in some way.

I have personal experience of this, as a patent holder. A patent is essentially of little value to a small business that cannot afford the tens of thousands it costs to fight infringement.

The bottom line is that only big companies can afford to use the legal protection methods available. The majority of small boat designs come from designers working as sole traders, essentially just feeding their families by their endeavours, or they come from small companies, employing maybe a handful of staff. One of my patents was infringed many years ago by a large company and there was nothing I could practically do about it. The legal cost of even an initial challenge would have been more than my house was worth, so defending what was legally mine was completely impractical.

That's cool Jeremy. What's the patent number and country it's registered in?

[Jeremy Harris]

Originally Posted by nitsuj

That's cool Jeremy. What's the patent number and country it's registered in?

It's a GB patent, registered in several other countries, now around 20 odd years old. It's an old issue I have no interest in publicly debating; if you want to find it I'm sure you could, as like all patents its in the public domain. Although I'm the registered inventor the rights were held by my employer and it was they who chose not to expends tens of thousands on defending it. If you post details on here and try to start an argument over it I'll ask the mods to delete it as being non-relevant to this thread and personal to me.

[Nurb]

Originally Posted by nitsuj

I do condon splashing a kayak so long as it is not patent protected, which is a very likely case.

In the scenario you proposed, the original business that developed a kayak design (and spent 3 years???) is not protecting its intangible assets via patents/trademarks/copyrights. Being so foolish with money, I'd suggest having the physical kayak design stolen by a more competent producer is beneficial for all. Since maybe next round the R&D company would put resources into protecting its intangible assets from competitors, and in turn protecting investments poured into developing an invention.

If the R&D company had protected its intangible assets, there would be recourse.

Morally, the argument that it is ok to steal someone else's work because they didn't have or spend the resources to stop it doesn't hold water with me. It is still stealing.

Splashing does not advance design as it's not an effective way to improve a design. It's not "beneficial for all". All it results in are cheaper but lower quality copies flooding the market. At least the vessel hull design protection act is something and something is better than nothing.

[LP]

I keep coming back to this thread with some morbid sense of curiosity.

Aside from the moral debate, I would be concern over the applicability of a hull form designed for human propulsion being used for mechanical propulsion. If I had intentions for building an electric powered water vessel, I would want a hull that was optimized for it's partuicular application. Anything else would just be inadequate with mediocre results at best. Possible even dangerous.

M2C

[nitsuj]

Originally Posted by LP

I keep coming back to this thread with some morbid sense of curiosity.

Aside from the moral debate, I would be concern over the applicability of a hull form designed for human propulsion being used for mechanical propulsion. If I had intentions for building an electric powered water vessel, I would want a hull that was optimized for it's partuicular application. Anything else would just be inadequate with mediocre results at best. Possible even dangerous.

M2C

Thats true, well the paddling a kayak, left - right - left - right and so on require special forcus on ensuring the kayak "tracks" straight when paddling. This requirement wouldn't need the special attention for an electric power kayak. I'd guess the better a kayak tracks, the less manuverable it would be.

[nitsuj]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Harris

It's a GB patent, registered in several other countries, now around 20 odd years old. It's an old issue I have no interest in publicly debating; if you want to find it I'm sure you could, as like all patents its in the public domain. Although I'm the registered inventor the rights were held by my employer and it was they who chose not to expends tens of thousands on defending it. If you post details on here and try to start an argument over it I'll ask the mods to delete it as being non-relevant to this thread and personal to me.

Yea, I just would like to see what it is and stuff. No need for being so sensitive and paranoid about disclosing the patent #, so I can actualy find it in the public domain.

[Jeremy Harris]

Originally Posted by nitsuj

Yea, I just would like to see what it is and stuff. No need for being so sensitive and paranoid about disclosing the patent #, so I can actualy find it in the public domain.

Sorry, I just didn't want to discuss it on here. Here's a link to it: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...=2253376A&KC=A

[nitsuj]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Harris

Sorry, I just didn't want to discuss it on here. Here's a link to it: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...=2253376A&KC=A

That is cool Jeremy. And there is no question that is unique, has utility and in turn is an invention.

Good job! It is a remarkable acheivement to have invented.

You sir, are an inventor!

(and thanks for providing a link, much easier)

[kroberts]

I personally know or knew several people who have patents. Thinking on it now, I can't think of any of them who will talk about it without direct questioning.

The only one I can think of who actually got some sort of real value out of it worked for IBM. He had designed several processes (for which a patent is the appropriate protection) and while IBM got the rights to it, he got a significant cash reward and his name on the patent.