Senkosam Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 so lure designs do not copy natural shaped live animals for the most part,, as the action must be generated by reeling them in Appearance and action are essential parts of lure creation, with neither factor being dominant. 99 % of all lures ever sold do not have the action of the real thing, angler imparted or otherwise, whereas around 70% are similar to a prey species and the remaining few are exact copies in form and function to the real thing. Mad Man craw tubes are a prime example in that it exactly copies form and action when the bait rests on the bottom. It is the most exact copy of the real thing ever made, except it is made from plastic. Fin S fish and finesse worms require no action imparted, yet have the exact action of a darter, swimming in place, when used with a drop shot rig. Both might be patentable, but not under your definition. Is duplicating a natural form enough or must form and movement be incorporated to fall inside of patent law? Again, every Rapala ever made, looks like the basic shape of a minnow floating on the surface, yet Rebel minnows were different only in material used, not action. How come Rebel never had to get a license from Normark nor any other company making jerk sticks (a cigar shaped lure with a lip)? Again, there should be at least one example that comes to mind of a soft plastic lure (not salt impregnated), that was infringed upon and law suit filed and won. If your lures were indeed "ART" then they are protected by copyright laws, and I'm sure many, one of a kind fly's and paint jobs on hard baits are "art" and should/could have copyrights filed on them. Lures do not fall under the category of art, but they are artistic creations that have form and function. They will never have a lure-hall-of fame or be exhibited in a museum of most famous artistic lures ever made, but to appeal to an angler's sense of lure catchability, you have to design function(action) to follow appearance much of the time, in order to sell it. Copyrighted lures do not exist, just their names are copyrighted or can you name at least one? Gary normaly does not sue,, this does not mean he can't, or even won't If he never patented the Senko, it's too late anyway. He would have had to file to establish a date of invention (or did he?) You should be the one who reaps the profits from your designs, not some guy with a lot of money that can produce them by the millions What we are talking now, is people infringing on active patents of others not in this group That's what we are discussing and because it goes both ways - a big company stealing one of our designs or one of us stealing a corporate design. Same thing in that, unless the individual has the time and money, he's screwed either way and ethics walk, but only if a case can be made. LC has duplicated over 100 lure shapes, but none exactly (except lures that has one flat side). Most of his copies are those of discontinued lures made over 15 years ago. A lure is always three dimensional to the patent office and it seems that when three veiws are presented to the patent office, all three views are depicted exactly in picture or diagram from. If Lurecrafts Sweet Beaver molds creates baits that are similar in one profile, but very different in others, I wonder if Reaction Innovations could file a suit if someone sold this crude copy of the original, assuming the name was totally different. If not, Dave can't be, for trying to pass off poor substitute molds. Again, just about all of LC's molds fall into this category and I wonder if Dave is covered just by the fact that his molds lack the many of the details of the originals he has copied, as well as for any lures where the patent expired? If what you say is true, it would apply to DelW far more than Dave's lures because of exact detail duplication in all views for many of his molds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 so lure designs do not copy natural shaped live animals for the most part,, as the action must be generated by reeling them in Appearance and action are essential parts of lure creation, with neither factor being dominant. 99 % of all lures ever sold do not have the action of the real thing, angler imparted or otherwise, That has now changed, exspecialy with soft plastics, I can take any soft plastic and put a natural action to it, even when I'm not reeling it in whereas around 70% are similar to a prey species and the remaining few are exact copies in form and function to the real thing. similar is not exact, why is not every lure an exact copy of nature, we have the ability to make them so, we chave CNC machines that deplicate the shapes, and screen painting the color and looks Mad Man craw tubes are a prime example in that it exactly copies form and action when the bait rests on the bottom. It is the most exact copy of the real thing ever made, except it is made from plastic. Mad Man had filed for a patent, and were suing infringers last I talked to them,, I have not heard if they got their patent or if they won their law suits, or if they are being drug out F in S fish and finesse worms require no action imparted, yet have the exact action of a darter, swimming in place, when used with a drop shot rig. Both might be patentable, but not under your definition. You need to stop thinking that this is "my" defination, it is not mine, it is the law, reguardless what you or I think Is duplicating a natural form enough or must form and movement be incorporated to fall inside of patent law? Again, every Rapala ever made, looks like the basic shape of a minnow floating on the surface, yet Rebel minnows were different only in material used, not action. How come Rebel never had to get a license from Normark nor any other company making jerk sticks (a cigar shaped lure with a lip) Because they did not knock off the Rapala, until after the patents had expired we don't know what "part" of the Rapala was patented, and I'm not going to look it up,, you can if you wish Again, there should be at least one example that comes to mind of a soft plastic lure (not salt impregnated), that was infringed upon and law suit filed and won. Oh I could (but I won't) take some time and find you about 50 cases, but you need to know the details of the cases ,, what was the patented part of the lure,, now the salt case, ever major manufacturer lost that one, they all ended up paying If your lures were indeed "ART" then they are protected by copyright laws, and I'm sure many, one of a kind fly's and paint jobs on hard baits are "art" and should/could have copyrights filed on them. Lures do not fall under the category of art, but they are artistic creations that have form and function. They will never have a lure-hall-of fame or be exhibited in a museum of most famous artistic lures ever made, but to appeal to an angler's sense of lure catchability, you have to design function(action) to follow appearance much of the time, in order to sell it. Copyrighted lures do not exist, just their names are copyrighted or can you name at least one? How in this world can you tell me there is "any" product catogory, that falls out of all property protection laws, since these fall out off all protection laws , I will go the tackle store and fill my truch with them for free, and although they can have me arrested I can't be found guilty because i was taking something that falls outside of the laws of the land. Sorry sport, you don't have a clue about what your talking about,, just like you "think" a name can be copyrighted, it can't be, none ever have been, but names can be "TRADE MARKED". You don't even understand art,, art has nothing to do with big art shows, you don't have to be in a catagory where that is required for copyright. A lure can not be copyrighted,, but the paint job on a lure can, so can the packaging (what something looks like) that's called "trade dress" and you can be sued just for putting your lures in a package that "looks" like someone elses, even if the printing on the packaging is different, you can be nailed for infringing the "trade dress" of a product Gary normaly does not sue,, this does not mean he can't, or even won't If he never patented the Senko, it's too late anyway. He would have had to file to establish a date of invention (or did he?) Gary never patetned the Sinko, after a year since he offered them for sale has went by (by a number of years now) he can never file for it, but that was not what we were talking about,, we were talking about Trade Marks Gary also never filed for the "Sinko" trade mark, thus he has not sued those who's names sound close to it. Now do you think you could file and get the "Sinko" trade mark for your lures ? Since for some reason Gary never did. You should be the one who reaps the profits from your designs, not some guy with a lot of money that can produce them by the millions What we are talking now, is people infringing on active patents of others not in this group That's what we are discussing and because it goes both ways - a big company stealing one of our designs or one of us stealing a corporate design. Same thing in that, unless the individual has the time and money, he's screwed either way and ethics walk, but only if a case can be made. LC has duplicated over 100 lure shapes, but none exactly (except lures that has one flat side). Most of his copies are those of discontinued lures made over 15 years ago. A lure is always three dimensional to the patent office and it seems that when three veiws are presented to the patent office, all three views are depicted exactly in picture or diagram from. If Lurecrafts Sweet Beaver molds creates baits that are similar in one profile, but very different in others, I wonder if Reaction Innovations could file a suit if someone sold this crude copy of the original, assuming the name was totally different. If not, Dave can't be, for trying to pass off poor substitute molds. You are stuck on "Design Patents" are you not ?,, do you even know the difference between a design patent and a utility patent ? Again, just about all of LC's molds fall into this category and I wonder if Dave is covered just by the fact that his molds lack the many of the details of the originals he has copied, as well as for any lures where the patent expired? If what you say is true, Everything I have posted is "TRUE", it is not my beliefs it is actual law. I have even checked everything I've posted with my lawyer, just to make sure it would apply to DelW far more than Dave's lures because of exact detail duplication in all views for many of his molds.[/quote]I don't know about specific cases , as these do not pertain to my patents or inventions, I don't have time to police other's patents , trade marks or copyrights, I just know what these laws are for, and how they work. Lures are getting harder and harder to patent, due to all the prior art (the thousands of lure patents ) and the thousands of lures that never got a patent, are also prior art if published material on them can be found. The first rule of getting a patent is,, you must be "First" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB GONE Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 So are you saying that IF Reactions Innovations did not patent the sweet beaver (I have looked real hard to find nothing so far) and it has definitely been more than a year (so they have no claim now), I can apply for a patent on the "split tail" bait that is a near copy but flat on one side AND then turn around and sue all the guys pouring them now . Plus Bob, Del or anybody else that makes a mold even though I never created the bait...just because I was the first to apply for the patent!!!?? WOW...maybe I shold get some paperwork started!!! If ya'll get some letters, its just ME looking for some $$$$ for infringement!!!!! Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 So are you saying that IF Reactions Innovations did not patent the sweet beaver (I have looked real hard to find nothing so far) and it has definitely been more than a year (so they have no claim now), I can apply for a patent on the "split tail" bait that is a near copy but flat on one side AND then turn around and sue all the guys pouring them now . You can "apply" for anything, that does not mean you will get one issed Plus Bob, Del or anybody else that makes a mold even though I never created the bait...just because I was the first to apply for the patent!!!?? WE in the US are not a first to file country, we are a first to invent country, if you file for a invention you did not invent, you have commited "FRAUD" and could be fined or jailed, if they can prove this. WOW...maybe I shold get some paperwork started!!! If ya'll get some letters, its just ME looking for some $$$$ for infringement!!!!! You will actually be looking at finding hundreds of thousands from your assets, to pay your lawyers Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB GONE Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I'm also curious to hear from Del on this subject...Thise is a good part of his livelyhood!!! One other quick one...If I ask Del to make me a mold of a bait and he does, he is now in "in bed with me" IF that particular bait is patented..right??!! Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I'm also curious to hear from Del on this subject...Thise is a good part of his livelyhood!!!One other quick one...If I ask Del to make me a mold of a bait and he does' date=' he is now in "in bed with me" IF that particular bait is patented..right??!! Jim[/quote'] I don't know if he is into that kinky stuff or not, but he would be liable as you would, as being an infringer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterWerx Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I forgot where this was! LOL Either that or someone moved it on us...lol Sorry Im not all with it today, just got back from my pre-op appt @ the Docs and they gave me a nice shot of something to help with the pain....since the pills werent cutting it. Hey Matt, I PM'd you back did you get it? I don't even begin to understand the patent process and all the laws involved and though I never intend to sell any of my baits I might make this still makes for good reading and applies to us in it for the "hobby". Rockhopper, thanks for your time and info your sharing with all of us! I need to hop over to Dels site and find out how I order what I want. Take Care everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenarrow Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 hey rockhopper what is the punishment for patent infringment for personal use 3x the componys losses witch would be about $1.50 a bait times the 100 infringed baits in your taclebox withch would be $150 i realy dont see any compony sueing for that much money. personaly I wouldent infringe on any bait that I could buy in the store but I might to get a spesific color that isint prodused. p.s. I would like to see a pictiure of your hand made stand out hooks as long as it is safe under a patent witch I am sure they are. I would buy the hooks in larger sizes if they became avalable 2/0-5/0 and I have three pacages in my taclebox as we speak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 hey rockhopper what is the punishment for patent infringment for personal use 3x the componys losses witch would be about $1.50 a bait times the 100 infringed baits in your taclebox withch would be $150 i realy dont see any compony sueing for that much money. personaly I wouldent infringe on any bait that I could buy in the store but I might to get a spesific color that isint prodused. p.s. I would like to see a pictiure of your hand made stand out hooks as long as it is safe under a patent witch I am sure they are. here you go I would buy the hooks in larger sizes if they became avalable 2/0-5/0 and I have three pacages in my taclebox as we speak They are tooling up now on those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
