Legality of “Borrowing” Lines from Existing Hull Design

I should probably apologize for opening this can of worms. It was not my intension to start an argument. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my original post. The question to which I most wanted an answer is this: I realize it is illegal to copy someone else’s design. I have no intention of doing that. I am interested in designing my own boat, and building it for my own use. That’s all. There are a lot of similarities between boats within specific categories. For example, the category I am interested in right now is drift boats. I have no doubt that designers derive inspiration from existing designs that have proven successful. At what point does it cross the line from ‘inspiration’ to ‘copying’ from a legal standpoint.

The current leader in the drift boat category, at least from my perspective, is Hyde. The most distinguishing feature of a Hyde drift boat is its rounded transom, which allows the current to smoothly flow under the boat as the rower “back rows” against the current to hold the boat in place so the fishermen in the bow and stern can thoroughly cover to the best water near the bank. Hyde is the only manufacturer that has this rounded transom. It’s a feature I want to include in the drift boat I am designing (again, for my own use only). The rest of my boat will no more resemble a Hyde than any other drift boat. Would I be breaking the law by using the rounded transom design?

Again, thanks for the feedback.

CET

 

Caldera thats just not right, maybe so that you can copy someones design for your personal use but it's just not ethical. This does nothing but reduce you or any one who does it, is a theif, nothing more than stealing. And for you to say that some one could just use their design is just as wrong, hell man your offering someone else's work even though your not supplying the plans or the boat that would make you just as guilty in my eyes and God bless any one who tries to sue you for such intensions Think before you offer someone else's work, who know someone may offer your work for free one day.

 

Hyde

CET, why don't you just call Hyde ,introduce yourself and tell them what you want to do? There's probably an excellent chance they'll say "go ahead". You've got nothing to lose since you don't want to rip them off so being upfront is likely to be your best course of action.

 

I don't encourage stealing of anybody's designs. I hate thieves just as much as all of you. I just stated the FACT that it is not illegal to build any design (patented or not) for personal use as long as it is not for monetary gain. If no money is made, then there is no loss which means there is no case in court.

 

My understanding is that if you change 20% of the design then it is no longer the design you are copying. Designers for years have done the same, taking certain features of different boats and incorporated it to their boat designs. As a Designer and builder I worked for always said, " There are no new lines left. They have all been used." Lorsail and others have had the best idea yet on this thread if you want to use the design just ask all that could happen is be told no. Hell we all been told no all our lives, the most common word in the english language.
Good Luck,

 

Just to add my two penneth worth

"Borrowing Designs

I doubt that it is much of a problem designing a boat for yourself after looking at a couple of pictures - but if you start staring at the pictures to work out details, or worse, taking measurements off them - you should be slapped!!

If you need lots of information from the original boat - for goodness sakes - spring the $60 or $100 and pay the guy who designed the thing. It is not much money compared to the cost of the project.

If you need the details of his design to work out your version of it - it is his (or her) work so he/she should get some benefit from it.


On the other hand, if the designer is charging $600 for a driftboat design - you have the moral obligation to observe closely, measure carefully, draw up a clone and post the plan on the net for free download.
<grin>

Boatmik
___________________________
bit of an anarchistic feel in the air
___________________________

 

Leave it to lawyers to complicate things.

Lawyers lawyer, that is what they do. In court there are lawyers representing each side, and each swears the "law" favors their client. If you have money they will usually take your case.

Most of the argument here is about infringement. Rather than try following the convoluted personal stuff on this thread, read: TITLE 35 > PART III > CHAPTER 28 > § 271 > Infringement of patent. Just google "patent law" and go from there. It says that patented material belongs to the patent owner and can not be used by anyone, or cause anyone else to use, for any purpose without permission. That seems clear

Now in the original posted question, I think CET is in the clear, legally and morally in what he wants to do. The builder of his driftboat did not invent round sterns nor highly rockered flat bottom dory style boats. Something may be copyrighted and he should check to see if it is if he does intend to make a direct copy. My designs are copyrighted but I would hate to have to try enforcing them against someone who makes a similar boat. CET already owns the boat in question and it seems clear that he wants a "different" one. A different one is not a copy, splashed or otherwise. How did the thread get into all this legalistic and unrelated crap

 

I agree with you Tom...what do you write is for me clear

 

Caldera,
You are FACTUALLY wrong as much as a person that would say that 'shoplifting isn't theft if you use the stolen goods for personal use and don't resell them'. It's absolute nonsense.
You either don't know what you're talking about or enjoy throwing 'anarchistic' ideas at people while pretending your ideas are facts.
Proving the amount of loss is a different matter from proving the law was broken and it's being done all the time.
The most famous case in the news is the music companies suing a bunch of people who downloaded music from the Internet for personal use without paying for it, and these companies know exactly what they're doing and why. The people sued in these cases certainly regret what they had done, even before the end of the trial...

Anarchistic ideas may be interesting but they belong in a forum about philosophy or politics.
This is a boat design forum.

Michael,

A utility patent is basically two things:
1. A technical document that teaches people in this field how to make something that is both new, useful and works.
-Contrarily to the popular belief, one cannot patent an 'idea'.
2. A contract between the state and the inventor, under which the inventor agrees to reveal the details of his technology to the public in exchange of the state protecting his proprietary rights on it for a certain period of time.

The state examines each application and rejects the applicant's claims that it doesn't fully approve of in terms of novelty, usefulness or workability. The state doesn't include in the patent any claim for which the applicant was unable to provide the necessary proof in these terms.
In the process of examination the state's patent examiners scan local and foreign patent and patent applications databases. They analize the data and often engage in tedious argumentation meant to ensure that the state will eventually offer its protection over real intellctual property that indeed belongs to the applicant and not to the public or to another inventor.
This examination process can take years and the fees can be high. However this expense is practically negligible compared to the legal and editing fees that are required in order for the patent to be a solid one.

It is important to remember that a utility patent is different from a design patent, and patent rights are different from copyrights.

BTW, I'm talking from my experience with the US patent and trademark office, as well as patent attorneys and intellctual property management firms.

Yoav

 

This Stealing of a Design Thing

I gotta admit, I really didn't want to get into this discussion. And here's where the big BUT, comes into play....

Before I got into boat design as a professional involvement, I spent 30+ years as a producer/director/cameraman/ for films and video where I was involved in at least a hundred, product intro/marketing/prior art film/videos for newly emerging technologies.

In almost every case, the creator of said technology felt they had the "real deal" that would send them down the road to riches and that by engaging in the patent process, they would, therefore, be protecting themselves from the spying eyes and evil intentions of competitors.

Again, in almost every case in which an expensive and time consuming patent was granted, the product, once proven in the marketplace, was ripped-off in an unceremonious fashion and produced by someone else in short order with only minor changes to the original. (most of the changes made the thing better, by the way)

A patent does not protect you from anything. Period. What it does do is give you a basis for the entitlement of pursuing (at your own expense, mind you) the nice folks who misappropriated your inspired design work. The chump change needed to even get the attention of a lawyer to pursue the so-called infringement starts at about $10 large and goes up, rapidly, from that point as the case proceeds.

In the end, even if you win, and winning is a fleeting concept in this area as sometimes the best you can get is that the offending party simply agrees to stop building that which so closely mimics your original. What you got was a temporary reprieve from the inevitable as they, no doubt, have already begun the revamp process to fully supercede your patent claims. You spent tons of cash to watch them go to school on your full design claims and you walked away the "victor". I consider that a pyrrhic victory at best and pragmatically foolish in a broader business sense.

If you've invented a product that has hundreds of millions, or Billions, of dollars attached on the upside, then a patent process makes total sense because the loss or ecovery can amount to real money. I still haven't seen the boat product that comes anywhere close to entering that realm and likely never will. (OK, 500 hundred years of monetary inflation may take us to that point)

I'm of the opinion that your money would have been better spent developing newer, bolder technology so that your marketing efforts can be directed to segment superiority through actual use claims. While your competitors are in their shops trying to figure out how you did it, you can get busy inventing the next coolest object on the planet. The result will be that you remain ahead as long as the product has value in the marketplace.

Court environments are for those with too much cash and not enough sense, as the moment you walk in front of a jury, all bets are off for anything like a sane solution if the argument is highly technical in nature.

Is swiping someone's design morally funky? Absolutely, if you give no meaningful attribution and then act like you cooked it up yourself. Is it against the law? In a vacuum, yes. In the real world, show me the money and I'll chase it for you. Is Caldera showing a measure of disrespect for another designer’s work? Could be construed that way and won't win one any points in the design world if that's a regular practice.

I'm all for the approach that was suggested by Doug Lord. Simply dial-up the manufacturer, or send them a really respectfully worded letter, and ASK for the privilege of attempting to do your own take on the design. Perhaps I'm naive in this regard, but I'm still of the opinion that most humans are still open to a respectfully prepared request that acknowledges the origins of the design and establishes a measure of honor for the original inspiration.

Screw a bunch of lawyers, court rooms and haughtily worded vitriol. Go at it like a man who wants to show that he understands the manner of respect that he would also hope to one day receive from his contemporaries.

Chris Ostlind
Lunada Design

 

Thanks again for all the responses.

To those of you who have suggested I contact Hyde about my plans – that is just what I plan to do. I own one of their boats already and have worked with them on various things. They are great people and I’m confident they’ll have no problem with my plans to build a similar boat for my own use.

My question was mostly just a matter of curiosity about how these sorts of issues are handled from a legal perspective. I appreciate all the responses and the great information they have provided.

Chris Ostlind – I see you are in Salt Lake City as well. Greetings from a fellow Utard. ;-) I gather you are a boat designer. What sorts of boats do you work with? I have recently become interested in boat design and building myself, but being landlocked limits the range of boats I can work with somewhat, so I’d be very interested in how other geographically challenged boat builders deal with that problem.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

I sent you an email, Charlie, but here's my address to write off-list

chris at wedgesail dot com

We can talk there and not bore the troops.

Chris

 

Chris - I just relied to your e-mail. Thanks.

Charlie

 

Chris,

Amen

Got ripped off once, by the British Post Office no less. Only consolation was that, at least some folks in high places though my stuff was worth stealing. Haven't lost any sleep over it though.