-CBTF and VARA-

Credit where credit is due

249, In my own work I have been meticulous in terms of intellectual property in protecting what I've done-4 US patents;one trademark and more of both on the way. I've also been meticulous in giving credit to others for ideas that I've used or combined with ideas of mine. I was granted a patent on a twin pole spinnaker system that works extremely well for rc models but Garry Hoyts "bent boom" patent combined with mine makes an even better system; that's why it's called the Hoyt-Lord spinnaker system. The Wing Tip Rig™ has been explained in detail in many different places but again: it is a system particularly for rc models that allows a more rectangular planform without using full battens.It IS a modern version of a gaff rig whose implementation is entirely different than a standard gaff since the "gaff"(wing tip") fits into the top of the mast and is made of solid(or hollow carbon)-with bearings, bushings and or thrust washers.. The "peak" end of the "wing tip" is flat and designed so that the peak of the sail can be adjusted fore and aft. The upper outhaul is critical to the proper functioning of this system. I did a search on this and could have patented it but since it's value is primarily for rc models I decided against it.I've never seen a rig anywhere with an upper outhaul nor one with the shape and system of the Wing Tip Rig™. I don't think it would be particularly advantageous on fullsize boats because of the complication in making it all work-I have tried it. But for models it's great.
On my F3 foiler I devote almost a page on the website giving credit to Dr. Sam for the altitude control system and his help to me in developing that model which is the worlds first production rc sailing foiler.
In EVERYTHING I do I meticulously give credit to others that may have influenced my work in almost anyway whether or not the material is patented.(Dr.Sams Rave altitude system is not patented) And if it is patented I pay the royalty.(Garry Hoyts patent combined with my own spinnaker system).
Thats why it ticks me off so much to see the cavalier attitude expressed by so many in regard to intellectual property. CBTFco spent years and loads of money developing the technology and after it's completely proven to be the fastest lateral resistance solution for canting keels it is copied right and left.
I don't know about the FS24 yet but I will find out if they've done the right thing regarding the use of CBTF or not. If they haven't I WILL have more to say. There is no legitimate reason to ripoff anyone else's technology and it seems to be de riguer in the sailing world(Maximus vs CBTF) and many misguided individuals seem to think it's ok. It's not -it's a travesty that hurts everyone and is nothing less than a crime.
As to the combination of CBTF and VARA(not my idea ,by the way) there have been some intelligent and important comments by Eric and Steve . I haven't looked at the practicality of using it on a CBTF design-or any design- at all but I feel like with some experimentation and development it could work-or a better system might result.

 

Seems you forgot to credit the person who actually did these renderings when you posted about them here. Aren't renderings a form of IP?

As usual, "haven't looked at the practicality". Much easier to be a mindless cheerleader than a designer. Too bad this isn't www.mindlesscheerleading.net

 

The Wiing Tip Rig sounds practically identical to the Cassidy/Pearce (IIRC) Moth rig of the '60s. I accept that you did not "steal" the idea.

The fact that you came up with an identical or almost identical idea years later, apparently in good faith that it was a new concept, maybe shows how parralel inventions can be. This is just one example where many people have had similar ideas. Therefore maybe we should be less ready to accuse people of "ripping off" other's ideas, whether it's Wing Tips or CBTF "style" systems

After all, your AeroSkiff design includes concepts such as wings (Euro Moths, C 1960s), cunningham eyes, an assy spinnaker (I assume it's assy), mainsheet bridle, cam cleats, and something that sounds a bit like the under-the-gooseneck panel on a 49er. These are not your idreas yet you use them without acknowledging their origins. You use all these concepts without people accusing YOU of "ripping off" the ideas of people like Briggs Cunningham, Loveday, Paul Butler and Andrew Buckland, so why should other people cop abuse because they also use concepts created by others?

If the FS24 is not sold in countries where CBTF Co hold a patent, then there is no "right thing" for them to do. CBTF hold no legal rights when they don't have a patent and surely they have no moral rights either.

After all, CBTF boats use many concepts developed by others - assymetric spinnakers, canting keels, bulbs, full battened mainsails, multiple speed winches. If they have the "moral rights" to use Andrew Buckland's idea for the modern assymetric spinnaker for example, why don't other people have the "moral rights" to use CBTF style technology where there are no patent issues?

As has been pointed out to you, the reason canting/multi foil systems have cropped up recently is surely due directly to the fact that until recently, canters were not allowed in the Hobart, Fastnet, Volvo, Bermuda, Transpac, Admirals Cup, maxi worlds, IMS worlds and most other events. Of couse there has been an upsurge in interest recently, there was no reason for the people behind Scandia, Maximus etc to build canting boats when they were banned from most events! Why did the earlier Wild Oats and Wild Things not have canting keels? Simple, they were banned!

If a "moral debt" is owed by other people to CBTF, surely CBTF also "owe" the people who developed and perfected the canting keel?

I agree with the concept of patents and protection of intellectual property. I'm just not so sure there is (1) a sufficient inventive step in CBTF and (2) infringement by similar systems - but since I didn't do IP at law school and haven't seen both sides of the story and spent many hours on precedents, I'm not sure. Anyone who hasn't done plenty of legal and factual research, studied IP law and heard both sides of the story is fooling himself if they think they know for sure.

 

Prior Art

Almost every invention is a combination of prior art which is referenced on the front of each patent.Same with CBTF or VARA.
If people use technology based on a current patent w/o paying the royalty they are stealing-I don't care where they are from. If "designers" use this technology without credit and without paying a royalty they are debasing themselves and their product.CBTF is being ripped off by Maximus and probably others because it is the fastest canting keel technology-and because these people think they can get away with it. Other honorable owners have paid the royalty to use the technology even when they technically didn't have to because it was the right thing to do.
Not only that but patents are supposed to be a method of "teaching" new technology. In return for a period of exclusive use the inventor MUST disclose the invention to the public. Then others can come along and combine a few current or expired patents and come up with better system. Teaching, learning= improvement. Stealing other peoples technology shouldn't be part of the system.
Of course patents can be succesfully stolen-happens all the time and it's a damn shame. But just because the Chinese and some sailboat designers are doing it as a method of doing business doesn't make it right.
=========================
B(s)- those kFOIL™ renderings were done by a friend-Will Gorgen- who WAS credited on the forum where they originally appeared. He was paid to do them based on sketches of mine and they are my property.
==========================
Eric G, one of the benefits of a patent is that you can look it up and see the details. The first CBTF patent has a lot of detail about the "preferred embodiment " of the system showing linkages and such for control of the two foils for collective and "normal" steering. I don't have the number handy but e-mail or PM me and I'll get it for you.You can probably read it on the net somewhere or order a copy very inexpensively.

 

"If people use technology based on a current patent w/o paying the royalty they are stealing-I don't care where they are from."

Soooo let me get this straight. You reckon that if someone has a patent on an invention somewhere in the world, everyone else who lives in other countries should pay a license - despite the fact that the patent holder has decided not to apply for a patent in more than one country?

So under your idea, someone could go to some tin-pot country with a really lax system where they don't research prior art much and almost give patents away, and there they could get a patent for a really obvious device that would not be patented anywhere else. This patent would then give them exclusive rights to that device in EVERY other country in the world.

So effectively, no country should be allowed to have its own IP and patent laws....people in the USA should, for example, would have to pay license fees for items patented in Myanmar, even if that item was not patentable under US law.

US law is renowned for being lax in its prior art searching and in its inventive steps. Australia's patent pending system is a joke, even allowing a pp to be granted for wheels. According to your ideals, patents granted under our systems would operate in the US, which means that you will have to pay for using your wheels on your cars......that'll do wonders for our economy!

So Doug, you reckon that all the international agreements about patents are wrong, all the international law about patents is wrong, all the legal systems in other countries which have different standards about inventive steps etc are wrong......everyone is wrong, in fact, apart from Doug.


Re "I've also been meticulous in giving credit to others for ideas that I've used or combined with ideas of mine."

Sorry, but where on your site do you give credit to the European International Moths for the wings on your MonoFoiler? Where is the credit to Bucko for the assymetric? Where is the credit for the mainsheet bridle? Where is the credit to Paul Butler for the cam cleats? Where is the credit for the full battens in western liesure sailboats, the credit for the self tacking jib, etc etc etc?

 

Credit where credit is due

The patent system is a mess but in the sailboat design field it should be a matter of honor: to blatantly ripoff the technology that someone else has patented THAT IS STILL CURRENT should be abhorrent to everyone as well as being an admission of the lack of creativity and honor of the designer/group involved.
You confuse what is current(in the "protected" stage) with patents or ideas that are in the public domain and are free for anyone to use .
Sure some of these guys can legally ripoff CBTFco or VARA as long as they are willing to never come into the US during the period of the patent but it's not right.
Ideally, IP law should be overhauled so that every country co-operates with every other in searching prior art and in protecting granted patents. A patent granted to a universal high standard in one SHOULD be a patent granted in all.But that's certainly not the way it is.
In reality costs are prohibitive for all but the wealthiest patent owners to file overseas and standards everywhere need improvement. The prevailing attitude seems to be that it's ok to steal intellectual property- so why have any law at all? At least Internationally the system is almost completely useless except for the wealthiest of invention owners and in some countries even they are in trouble.
So for now sailboat designers outside the US appear to be able to legally steal patented technology without so much as a nod to the current patent holder. Those that do that are contemptable , dishonorable ripoff artists in my humble opinion.

 

it is a matter of opinion as you state......

 

I just feel I have to write somethig...

IP law worldwide is currently falling apart. Wether its patented design innovations, music or film, wich I work with on my day job,it's a mess. UNFORTUNATELY, there's simply no way in hell to improve on the current state without having to charge a lot for it.

Intellectual property law, is it a thing of the past or will we have to pay up to get it current again (it hasn't been for the last ten years or so)?

Personally see no reason what so ever (none, zip, zilch) to take out a patent on a design as an eventual designer (still just an amatuer), the only proper way to do it would be at leatst to do it in the US, EU, Oz and NZ. Can you spell bancrupcy?! (I can't And then you'd still be unprotected in a lot of countries.

I think it might be better (cheaper?) to TM a process or technology and then sell the actual research data and design info to those interested.
The problem with this, that patents are intended to overcome, is that to convince a buyer of your concepts validity you have to "show them the money", as soon as that's been done you cold get ripped off if it's not patented...

As we say in Sweden "Whichever way you turn, the *** is at the back..."

OTOH, CTBF or VARA beeing patented... both should both likely be covered by prior art an all parts. Just putting old design ideas together does not an innovation make imho.

 

In an ideal world, Doug, your system sounds OK. The problem is that we have to deal with national systems with flaws; for example, the really low standard of innovation required under US law, the really bad searching for prior art under Australian law.

There are many US IP spe******ts outside sailing who believe that the US patent office allows patents that are obvious - so why should everyone in the world be under a moral obligation to follow your crappy IP laws? Are you under a moral obligation to follow our crappy patent pending laws?

Why should sailors have a moral obligation to follow the laws of another country? Where I live, I have to wear a PFD while windsurfing - do you do that because it's the law here? Where you live, you can donate your boat and get tax relief - is that immoral because I can't do it? What next, British sailors will have to follow Shariah laws?

The idea that people are immoral if they follow accepted international law and their own law, rather that US law, seems jingoistic and one eyed to me. It's interesting that your CBTF allegations on this and other forums are clearly defamatory under the law of my country. It seems strange that you can abuse the morals of those who have broken NO law, when you have broken the law on this very CBTF issue.

I notice you did not have any reply when I pointed out that you have NOT, as you claimed, "been meticulous in giving credit to others for ideas that I've used".

I do not confuse what is in the public domain, I merely fail to see why there's any moral failing in using things that are patented under a US system that many US IP experts feel is crap. If CBTF wanted to stop Spaniards using CBTF without paying a license fee then they should have tried to patent CBTF in Spain.

 

credit where credit is due

I responded by pointing out that you confuse current patents with expired patents or other ideas generally accepted as being in the public domain. To the best of my ability I HAVE been meticulous in giving credit for other people's ideas that I've used as I pointed out earlier-even when they were not patented. As to wings, asymetrics ect there is no way to give credit for those ideas because there are different people taking credit for their development or no known(to me) source.As to the Wing Tip Rig™ I have seen no evidence anywhere at any time that indicated that that system has been used before-and did do quite an extensive search.
On the Maximus issue I have a lot of evidence to backup what I have said including many documents that have been made public and I stand 100% behind my comments.As to me breaking any law that is absurd-mainly because I can prove what I have said is correct.
I have made no comments regarding the FS-24 except to ask the question whether or not they are using CBTF legally.Some owners of CBTF yachts obviously feel there is a good reason to pay the licensing fee even though their boats are not based and probably won't sail in the US. Call it "morally right" or whatever but some of these guys obviously do the right thing because they feel it is important to do so.

 

Your concepts that there is something immoral about using something not patented in your country, and the fact that you have to agree with the decisions of patent offices in other countries, remains unique AFAIK, Doug....maybe you could try to patent that idea?

"As to me breaking any law that is absurd-mainly because I can prove what I have said is correct."

Truth is not a defence everywhere, Doug - here and (IIRC) in the UK and NZ it is only a defence in certain defined circumstances. Damn stupid, but under the "Lord doctrine" you have to obey the laws of all other countries, so.....

Anyway, I apologise to all readers for being so boring and I'll give it a rest. Sorry chaps.