DSS patent

Hi everyone,
do I understand well, that DSS owns patent for all systems of horizontal foils/daggerboards?

Is it write that normal designer/builder can't put horizontal foil on boat?

And what about SAFRAN?

Thanks for explanation

Viktor

 

Dss

Hello, Viktor-welcome to the forum! As far as I know there have been no court cases challenging DSS or to enforce the patent. Knowing the inventor a bit ,I'd say it's probably a very good patent.
There is a high likelyhood that the Saffran type foil is covered by the DSS patent. The fact that the thing is patented only means that they have to pay a royalty for use of the technology for which they get the benefit of the last 10 or so years of development. Individual boat builders that want to use a DSS foil can contact Hugh Welbourn and discuss their plan with him.
The idea of a patent is to encourage innovation and I think it's a very good thing-except that ,in some cases, it's easy to steal somebodies patent. Luckily for Hugh, his patent is very hard to steal since it is so obvious on a boat equipped with it.

 

I know.. Iunderstand to patnent well.. I just understand how anyone could get patent o horizontal daggerboard.. it's like situation that somebody will sign patent for rudder...

DSS has patent for 4 technical systems of horizontal foil.. one of them is just standard daggerboard system, but they put it in horizontal position.. that's why I don't understand that... :/

 

Dss

You say "horizontal daggerboard" but thats not accurate. The DSS foil has nothing to do with lateral resistance and everything to do with generating righting moment. It could encompass a vertical daggerboard(Saffran) attached to the horizontal section and I believe that is included in the patent.
I think Hugh was brilliant to come up with DSS years ago and do all the R&D it's taken to come up with viable system and I hope his patent is rock solid because there are those who will try to steal it.

 

Doug,

I don't have a clue what the patent is but all patents are claim specific and righting foils have been around for a long time. Have built a couple myself. Way too many claim that they have a patent on item X but only have a patent on a particular part of the device. Not saying that is true here though.

 

Dss

Hi, Tom-I know Hugh Welbourn and I think he probably has a very tight patent-but I don't know for sure. I hope it is solid because it's bound to be challenged now that it's been proven to work so well.
I'd be very interested in the foils you built and how they worked.

 

Just common curved foils on a trimaran raised and lowered in curved boxes. Made of laminated wood with flat bottom and ogive on top. Worked, but no data on them. Made for the World 1000 but lacking time to trial, the slots were closed and they were not used in the race. Gave them to an artist for an abstract project.

 

Thanks Tom....

 

patents are about protections for commercial operators
* as an individual you can make and use this device without issue
* as a commercial operator, you should be able to license the technology

 

Interesting theme.

I am absolutely not a legal expert, but according to this site: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/ the issue of individual vs. commercial use is regulated on national level.

Excerpt:

"Commercial and noncommercial use

In most European countries, the exclusive exploitation rights granted by a patent are restricted to commercial exploitation. A private person who builds the patented invention in his own home for his own personal goals cannot infringe on a patent. The reasoning behind this is that such a situation cannot harm the patent holder.

US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal. Of course, since patent infringement lawsuits are very expensive, a private person is rarely if ever prosecuted for using the invention in his own home. Such a situation could occur when a private person offers on his website a piece of software that uses someone else's patented technology. The patent holder may feel that the freely available software threatens his commercial product, and then decide to use the patent to prevent the distribution of the free product."​

 

irresistible
clearly living in 'the land of the free' is somewhat more limited
in Australia its much like the Eurozone

 

I just wonder that folks don't ask nicely and accept the reply.

For example, just a hypothetical, one might send a note on these forums asking Par to use his aft foil gizmo for a boat they were building in their backyard. The worst he might do is politely say "no".

Well, I say politely. He's pretty polite. But if our hypothetical someone thinks cussing him out is a nice way to "ask", or if they've been a constant jerk towards him in the forums to begin with, they shouldn't be surprised if his response were stridently worded.

 

The result of a successful case for patent infringement is that 'royalty damages' be paid to the patentee for loss of an income on a protected design.
... And rightly so, as such advancement brings with it some risk of reward.

Since individuals at home are unlikely (to say the least) to have any positive monetary gain from the adventure, its a null case. That sir is why they are not pursued.

Many other legal regimes offer 'purposive construction', (look at Canada) so that a technology can be proved, examined, even redesigned. Likewise many states have 'safe harbour provisions', and I believe the US is one, to protect its citizens from baseless threats to pecuniary action to sue. Baseless because there is no enduring monetary reward, which is the entire purpose of making it a legal matter.

I apologise for not commenting on the rest of your passage as I have no idea what you meant.

 

No problem.

I was just observing that some folks have odd ideas of tact that is anything but and that dealing with them tries the patience of anyone.

 

Interesting, seems to focus on foils parameters quite a lot
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/dynamic-stability-systems-limited/patents/AU2007237129/