Lure Copies

[rockhopper]

They aren't copies' date=' you made them didn't you? I wouldn't feel right about blatantly copying another guys bait but it's almost impossible to not make something similar to something that has been done in the past. Every bait on the market today is a knock-off of another made decades ago.

jed[/quote']

Yes and no,, there can be a modification that could be patented

[rockhopper]

Thanks for the encouragement guys. Now where are the gals?

Jed:

well I'm giving credit to where this stuff originated from although I did do all the work & mods which strictly makes these lure not the original lures anymore?.

If you use just one claim of a patented lure ' date=', reguardless of other changes you have made, you are infriging

It's true what you've said, fishing stuff have been done over and over so many times it's hard to come up with something that doesn't resemble what's been done before or work in the same principle. Even some patented stuff I've seen are strictly speaking "improvements" over what's been done before, guess these guys just have more buisness sense than we do to take advantage of the patent process.

You just don't understand, when something is patented, it can be just part of the lure, not the lure as a whole, it is possible to patent the changes, and yet not be able to make the whole lure, because other parts are patented

[rockhopper]

Thanks for the encouragement guys. Now where are the gals?

Jed:

well I'm giving credit to where this stuff originated from although I did do all the work & mods which strictly makes these lure not the original lures anymore?.

It's true what you've said' date=' fishing stuff have been done over and over so many times it's hard to come up with something that doesn't resemble what's been done before or work in the same principle. Even some patented stuff I've seen are strictly speaking "improvements" over what's been done before, guess these guys just have more buisness sense than we do to take advantage of the patent process.[/quote']

Show me a lure that is unique and bears no resemblance to an existing lure. Every minnow lure is a copy of a Rapala, which Old man Rapala probably copied from his neighbor Sven. I'll bet that if you sat down and designed that unique plug :idea: I mentioned and posted it here, someone would say, "Oh, thats a (you fill inthe blank) copy.

Exceptional work as usual Lapala.

You can legaly copy any lure that is not patented, or the patent has expired

Yes many lures use the basic Repala minow design, that patent expired many years ago

[rockhopper]

When I started building hard baits I wanted to "pave my own way" but after spending several hours looking at patents I realized it was impossible! I am suprised to be honest by what the patent office allows for patent. If I take a ford or chevy truck' date=' remove the motor, put in a modified motor of some type, paint it a new color, put on different bumpers, tires, wheels, and seats, is it now a now a "unique concept"? I don't think so but the patent office sure allows that type of thing to happen all the time. I don't think it makes "good business sense" to patent a lure because someone will mod it slightly and use it anyway...save your money.

Jed[/quote']

Jed, ou really don't understand patents,, just the changes of these are patented, getting a patent does not give the inventor the rights to make his improvement, intergrated with the original patented item.

Let's say a Ford truck is patented, I want to improve that truck with a turbin engine, so I patent a turbine engined ford truck, what this does it allows me to keep Ford, from making trucks with Turbine engines, unless they license the changes I have made. That patent soes not allow me to make Ford Trucks from scratch, with a turbine engine, now it does allow me to "buy" a truck from Ford, and put my engine in it.

[rockhopper]

To hell with any "fair use act" !!!!!!!!! Whatever that is......

The "Fair use act only purtains to "processes" and process equipment"' date=',it means a company was using these before another filled for a patent on them, it keeps the patent holder from stopping people who had been already using the proccesses prior to the other filing for a patent.

Fair us does not mean you can make and use a copy of a patetned item

You made or modified these baits by hand. They are not the same as the originals. Even if they were it would not matter. YOU as an individual are not a threat to the larger bait companies. You could never make enough lures to cause those companies any grief. You are not a factor on their profit. Make all that you want and sell all that you want. Unless you are making tens of thousands of baits a year and taking their profits, they will leave you alone. I know a man that has made a huge pile of money modifying Bagley and Rapala lures and reselling them. As a matter of fact Bagley has talked to him about the modifications that he came up with for their baits. Make your lures, make a little money, and enjoy catching fish on them. That's what it is all about.

Skeeter

Your still stealing ffrom th original inventor, whether they go after you or not does not mean your innocent of doing anything wrong

[rockhopper]

OK, my understanding is that if you change a certain percentage of the original, patented product, you are not in violation of the law. (Probably wrong here, but with all the patented products, and the "knock-offs" of the product being advertised on the same page, I figure I'm leaning towards correct

You are VERY WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyhow, IF this is true, then I think it would be fair to say LaPala is operating within the confines of the law, as these baits are A: made with a different process B: made with different woods and finishes and C: Look 100% better than the originals :-D

it depends on what parts of the new lure are patented, those things you list may or may not be important

Just my 2 cents..and I think I'll copyright it :grin:

[RiverMan]

Rockhopper,

I don't claim to know anything about patents other than what I have gleaned from patent searches and personal observation. I acknowledge that I am likely niave in my interpretation of patent law. That being said, here is my take on things, right or wrong.

I make musky baits and there are literally dozens and dozens of baits that look like mine, swim like mine and are finished like mine. These baits are here today, were here yesterday, a hundred years ago, and will be here tomorrow. What I make is not "unique", or possess or contain an attribute that could set it "apart from" thousands of others produced before it.

I don't prescribe a builder on this site take a Lucky Craft lure body, paint it and sign his name to it. But, if you take the shape of a Lucky Craft, make it from wood, give it your method of weighting, paint, finish, etc., and sign it, I sincerely doubt anyone is going to try and take that to court...and that is essentially what all of us and thousands of others in the market (including Lucky Craft, Rapala, Heddon, etc.,) are doing. If you haven't done so already take a look at antique lures, there isn't an idea on the market today(with the exception of some high-tech rattles and weights maybe) that hasn't been around for 50 years or longer.

I think too it depends some on the product you are talking about....there are probably some products on the market in which the patent ties are very tight and any production along similar lines would be unacceptable. But we are talking about fishing lures, lures that have been manufactured in the same way for a century or longer. The patents on these concepts have long since expired and thus open for production by all. Unless a builder is copying a very "unique", i.e. "one of a kind", feature of some lure or lure type held under a current patent, I think a company would be hard pressed to show infringement. How can you be infringing on something that has been made for a hundred years in every shape and form we currently use today? Now if you take a lucky craft bait and send it off to China and have them make you an injection mold for that bait identical in every way then I would agree you are likely violating a patent.

Kind regards,

Jed

[Skeeter]

rockhopper wrote:

Your still stealing ffrom th original inventor, whether they go after you or not does not mean your innocent of doing anything wrong

Because someone holds a patent on something does not mean that it is his original idea or that he is the inventor. It means that he was the first to get the paperwork in and his check book out. Because they have a patent does not mean that they are innocent of doing something wrong either. What determines whether they go after me or anyone else is strictly a matter of MONEY!!!! ( I meant to shout ) It is what business is about. I under stand that. If someone takes a chunk of the profit and hurts a lone craftsman or large business by making an exact duplicate of their product and selling it then they are wrong. I do not need a patent to tell me that. However, we teach folks how to make baits on this site by making copies of a bait that already exists. It is something that they can see, touch, and study. They have something in front of them to work from. ( Not that LaPala is a beginner). But the lure that he made is not the same, period. If the bait is not the same as the original and he is not using the same (patented) process to make the lure then patent or not no one has a leg to stand on. He can make those puppies all day and all night long and sell them for whatever price that he wants. And if anyone can't understand that, then I will have to get LaPala to take them for a ride and fit them for some cement overshoes.

Skeeter

[LaPala]

Rockhopper:

Your replies has just made me more confused than ever...

Here are a few points if you don't mind clearing up (sry to infringe on your time like this but this patent stuff is real confusing):

If a lure is patented,, you

"""""CAN NOT MAKE IT FOR PERSONAL USE""""""

This is patent infringement, even if you never sell one. Now will a lure company come after you for this ? I doubt it, but it is still moraly wrong you are stealing

With the myraid of lures out there and most don't have patented or patent-pending or even if they do most just don't tell u what the patent is all about. So how can we tell what we are infringinging upon or "stealing"? I can't imagine everyone of us here hiring someone or searching the patent office record everthime we have an :idea: or wanted to do a particular type of lure. What is the moral or right thing to do???

If you use just one claim of a patented lure, reguardless of other changes you have made, you are infriging.

You just don't understand, when something is patented, it can be just part of the lure, not the lure as a whole, it is possible to patent the changes, and yet not be able to make the whole lure, because other parts are patented

This is even more confusing, does this mean if a part of a lure is patented u cannot copy that patented part but you can practically reproduce that whole lure leaving out the patented part?

This is the part that really throw me off course in the issue on moral of copying:

You can legaly copy any lure that is not patented, or the patent has expired

Yes many lures use the basic Repala minow design, that patent expired many years ago

You made or modified these baits by hand. They are not the same as the originals. Even if they were it would not matter. YOU as an individual are not a threat to the larger bait companies. You could never make enough lures to cause those companies any grief. You are not a factor on their profit. Make all that you want and sell all that you want. Unless you are making tens of thousands of baits a year and taking their profits, they will leave you alone. I know a man that has made a huge pile of money modifying Bagley and Rapala lures and reselling them. As a matter of fact Bagley has talked to him about the modifications that he came up with for their baits. Make your lures, make a little money, and enjoy catching fish on them. That's what it is all about.

Skeeter

Your still stealing ffrom th original inventor, whether they go after you or not does not mean your innocent of doing anything wrong

You mentioned it's morally wrong to copy, how does it make it morally okay now to copy after the patent has expired or not patented? Is it because money is not involved here now or the original patent owner is deemed to have made enough money now Copying b4 or after a patent or without a patent to me is STILL copying!!!! Or like some that do reproductions of antique lures which Mallard mentioned, and sometimes you're forced to cause you can't find anymore to fish with & that *%&^ Bass took your last one. So morally how we do here?

The "Fair use act only purtains to "processes" and process equipment",,it means a company was using these before another filled for a patent on them, it keeps the patent holder from stopping people who had been already using the proccesses prior to the other filing for a patent.

Fair us does not mean you can make and use a copy of a patetned item

This is a rig and old man I just called Uncle tought me to do. I'm sure I can dig up smiling photos of fisherman using this rig during the 1980s while I fish the sea for snappers using this rig.: . It's a bit different but I think the principles are similiar to your StandOut Hook. Does this mean the originator of this rig can actually manufacture and sell this rig even if you have the StandOut Hook patent?

Thanks for your time Rockhopper in answering these fumbling questions.

[rockhopper]

Rockhopper:

Your replies has just made me more confused than ever...

It is confussing' date=' that's why lawyers wright the laws

Here are a few points if you don't mind clearing up (sry to infringe on your time like this but this patent stuff is real confusing):

If a lure is patented,, you

"""""CAN NOT MAKE IT FOR PERSONAL USE""""""

This is patent infringement, even if you never sell one. Now will a lure company come after you for this ? I doubt it, but it is still moraly wrong you are stealing

With the myraid of lures out there and most don't have patented or patent-pending or even if they do most just don't tell u what the patent is all about. So how can we tell what we are infringinging upon or "stealing"? I can't imagine everyone of us here hiring someone or searching the patent office record everthime we have an :idea: or wanted to do a particular type of lure. What is the moral or right thing to do???

If it is a "new" hot lure, then that inventor should reap the finnacial benifits from it,, if you just came up with a million dollar lure would you want others making them ?, perhaps selling them ? cutting you out , your not even getting credit for it.

It it's the lastest greatest fish catcher, the moral thing to do is go buy some, if you want to improve it with a better paint job then, take "their" paint off and do it, both legal and moral.

If it is a "old lure" (more than 20 years old), then make all you want, both legal and moral.

If you want to make the "latest and greatest" why don't you come up with the latest and greatest, if you have the skill to be a forger, you have the skills to do originals of your own. I don't understand people who only want to "copy" others work, people who have the skills to originate, still want to copy ????????

If you use just one claim of a patented lure, reguardless of other changes you have made, you are infriging.

You just don't understand, when something is patented, it can be just part of the lure, not the lure as a whole, it is possible to patent the changes, and yet not be able to make the whole lure, because other parts are patented

This is even more confusing, does this mean if a part of a lure is patented u cannot copy that patented part but you can practically reproduce that whole lure leaving out the patented part?

Absolutly

This is the part that really throw me off course in the issue on moral of copying:

You can legaly copy any lure that is not patented, or the patent has expired

Yes many lures use the basic Repala minow design, that patent expired many years ago

[

quote]

You made or modified these baits by hand. They are not the same as the originals. Even if they were it would not matter. YOU as an individual are not a threat to the larger bait companies. You could never make enough lures to cause those companies any grief. You are not a factor on their profit. Make all that you want and sell all that you want. Unless you are making tens of thousands of baits a year and taking their profits, they will leave you alone.

They may or may not leave you alone, if they leave too many people alone, they could loose their rights to go after the big offenders, it is possible for them to bring multible infringers to court at the same time, thus saving them money in legal fees of going after them one at a time

I know a man that has made a huge pile of money modifying Bagley and Rapala lures and reselling them. As a matter of fact Bagley has talked to him about the modifications that he came up with for their baits. Make your lures, make a little money, and enjoy catching fish on them. That's what it is all about.

If he was "buying" these lures that were made by the manufacturers, and modifing them,, he is not infringing, if they were patented, if the patents had expired or the lure never had one, he was not infringing

Skeeter

Your still stealing ffrom th original inventor, whether they go after you or not does not mean your innocent of doing anything wrong

You mentioned it's morally wrong to copy, how does it make it morally okay now to copy after the patent has expired or not patented?

To me being an artist copying is forging reguardless, but when someone patents something, they "agree" to let the world make their invention after the patent expires

Is it because money is not involved here now or the original patent owner is deemed to have made enough money now Copying b4 or after a patent or without a patent to me is STILL copying!!!! Or like some that do reproductions of antique lures which Mallard mentioned, and sometimes you're forced to cause you can't find anymore to fish with & that *%&^ Bass took your last one. So morally how we do here?

A person must decide for themselves what is moral to them,, the law determines what is not legal

The "Fair use act only purtains to "processes" and process equipment",,it means a company was using these before another filled for a patent on them, it keeps the patent holder from stopping people who had been already using the proccesses prior to the other filing for a patent.

Fair us does not mean you can make and use a copy of a patetned item

This is a rig and old man I just called Uncle tought me to do. I'm sure I can dig up smiling photos of fisherman using this rig during the 1980s while I fish the sea for snappers using this rig.: . It's a bit different but I think the principles are similiar to your StandOut Hook. Does this mean the originator of this rig can actually manufacture and sell this rig even if you have the StandOut Hook patent

?

Thanks for your time Rockhopper in answering these fumbling questions.

Perhaps, although similure, it is not to my claimes,, which is made from a single wire, (which makes manufacturing much cheaper)it also is much less effisant than my hook, as the top eye can get all bent up when fighting a fish, as it is not as rigid

[Skeeter]

You are correct rockhopper. The guy I know that modified the baits bought them directly from the manufacturer. His last purchase was $17,000.00 worth of Bagley baits. I did not know that would make a difference.

Skeeter

[Swede]

couldnt get where i had seen a hook so similar to yours but found 1 in my flytyingstuff saw the box &here it is , did it inspire you ??

[LaPala]

Thanks for the answers Rockhopper, a few more points I'd like to ponder though...

If you want to make the "latest and greatest" why don't you come up with the latest and greatest, if you have the skill to be a forger, you have the skills to do originals of your own. I don't understand people who only want to "copy" others work, people who have the skills to originate, still want to copy ????????

From your last paragraph above, I'd have to say you haven't really looked into the prior lures that's available. There are so many latest & greatest lure out there that our grandfathers probably tried them all. The collective mind on a single objective of getting fish to bite tend to converge; not to mention lures are basically imitation of nature - so how many ways can you make a lure to resemble a certain type of bait fish?. New lures these days are more toward material & technology advancement that made certain designs possible as it was not available to our fore fathers. It's just refinements actually. Now most of us in TU making wooden baits are bound by the material & technic available to wood. If you're knowledgable in this aspect I'm sure you'll be aware of the inherent limitations and design posibilities in wood. To come up with a new original latest & greatest lure is perhaps next to impossible or it would probably solicit comment like "hey that looks like XXXX lure". This is probably why you commented "people who have the skills to originate, still want to copy ?" Now are we forgers just because the designs we come up with just happen to look like some other prior works? For those in TU who had seen my older works, I would dare say they would agree that I do not copy, but still surfing the net I can't help but have this little voice tell me "hey, the lure I just made looks very close to this one." Convergant of the working designs!!!

In the design process I'm sure as an inventor you would understand why copying comes into the picture --- to find out what works & what doesn't. I believe in copying because it's a learning process & not all of us are genuises who can invent things out of thin air. It's a mean to finding ways to make a better mouse trap. Now if I've patented a mouse-trap, I'm sure others can make a better mouse-trap but they couldn't sell one improved one without my concent because it's the law. Isn't this counter productive to creative "thinkering" or once something is already patented, it shouldn't be copied & improve upon because it'd be infringement? So I hope perhaps a wider scope look at this "copying" is called for and not confine it to the economics related to the patent process.

This was your answers to my old Uncle rig:

Perhaps, although similure, it is not to my claimes,, which is made from a single wire, (which makes manufacturing much cheaper)it also is much less effisant than my hook, as the top eye can get all bent up when fighting a fish, as it is not as rigid

Now this here is intereseting... by saying "perhaps" are u implying your idea is not indeed unique & original but stem from improvent of some other existing rigs and you laid claims on the improvements. Wouldn't this be a form of copying too? but it is not an infrigement because no one b4 U filed for a patent or laid claim to it?

BTW, the hook Swede posted reminds me of yours too, though I'm sure as a fly hook the bends does serve a different purpose. I found some info relating to that hook & it was invented in 1979!!

If it is a "new" hot lure, then that inventor should reap the finnacial benifits from it,, if you just came up with a million dollar lure would you want others making them ?, perhaps selling them ? cutting you out , your not even getting credit for it.

It it's the lastest greatest fish catcher, the moral thing to do is go buy some, if you want to improve it with a better paint job then, take "their" paint off and do it, both legal and moral.

If it is a "old lure" (more than 20 years old), then make all you want, both legal and moral.

To me being an artist copying is forging reguardless, but when someone patents something, they "agree" to let the world make their invention after the patent expires

Like Skeeter says, it all boils down to $$$ with morals as a camouflage to make the money making bit appeal to the "rightfulls"? I'm loosing confidence in this patent process.

Just some of my ponderings.... please correct me if I err.

[rockhopper]

Thanks for the answers Rockhopper' date=' a few more points I'd like to ponder though...

If you want to make the "latest and greatest" why don't you come up with the latest and greatest, if you have the skill to be a forger, you have the skills to do originals of your own. I don't understand people who only want to "copy" others work, people who have the skills to originate, still want to copy ????????

From your last paragraph above, I'd have to say you haven't really looked into the prior lures that's available.

So there is nothing more to invent ?

wait until next year, you will find someone has come up with more

This was your answers to my old Uncle rig:

Perhaps, although similure, it is not to my claimes,, which is made from a single wire, (which makes manufacturing much cheaper)it also is much less effisant than my hook, as the top eye can get all bent up when fighting a fish, as it is not as rigid

Now this here is intereseting... by saying "perhaps" are u implying your idea is not indeed unique & original but stem from improvent of some other existing rigs and you laid claims on the improvements. Wouldn't this be a form of copying too? but it is not an infrigement because no one b4 U filed for a patent or laid claim to it?

When I invented the Stand Out hook, there was and never has been anything on the market, writen about, or patented that reseambled it, someone finding an old rig someone used and then abandoned (according to the USPO, that's what happens in cases like this) I improved nothing, as I had nothing to improve except a hook of course,, hooks are what's called a fine art,, little changes make huge difference in purformace, that's why there are 700+ patents on the ones that just have one eye

BTW, the hook Swede posted reminds me of yours too, though I'm sure as a fly hook the bends does serve a different purpose. I found some info relating to that hook & it was invented in 1979!

!

I would love to see that info. post a link for me

Like Skeeter says, it all boils down to $$$ with morals as a camouflage to make the money making bit appeal to the "rightfulls"? I'm loosing confidence in this patent process.

The patent system is all about money, they cost money, and are used to protect someone's inventions, it is the reason people invent things, so they can make money off of them, thsoie who claim they don't invent for money are lying to themselves

Just some of my ponderings.... please correct me if I err.

[bladesandbaits]

I would love to see that info. post a link for me

end quote sorry

Rock, you may want to do a google on that hook,the guy that made that hook may not want his name brought up in this.Maybe Pictures should not have a persons name linked to them unless they approve.Maybe captain hook sales or some of the other hook distributors have seen it. Blades

[rockhopper]

couldnt get where i had seen a hook so similar to yours but found 1 in my flytyingstuff saw the box &here it is , did it inspire you ??

Not at all,,, I was looking to make a hook shaft to stick out 90 degrees from the fishing line,, this hook does not do that.

Actually my factorey hook is not really close to the one I invented,, the problem was the hook machines could not make my hook, so we played with the design until we got one they could make on a hook machine. My proto's are much better than the factorey hooks, I hope someday we will be able to get a machine to make them

[scoop10]

First of all, lure makers aren't artists. I don't care how good your stuff is, your lures do not inspire people to think beyond themselves, make a political statement or make you believe in something greater than yourself. If you are good, you are a craftsman.

Second, if any of this patent stuff matters, Gary Yamamoto should be one rich guy. He should be able to sue every Senko knockoff out there. Yet, I see more and more of them on the shelves every day. How is that?

How about all the Cenitpede knockoffs? What about the Poe's knockoffs, like the Z-4? But then again, wasn't Poe's a knock off of the Mann's and the Rebel deep divers? And how about the Rat-L-Trap? Wasn't that a knockoff of the Cordell Spot? And wasn't the Pop-R a knockoff of the Abrogast popper?

Sorry, no matter what the law says, it is obvious how the law is being interpreted: If you make any slight modification to an existing lure design, you obviously can get away with a knockoff. And as for being "morally" wrong, I guess we'll just have to live with that, along GM, Dodge, Skeeter, OMC, Zoom and Lucky Craft.

[Markell]

The first bait that I made was a copy of a favorite spinnerbait I used. I copied that bait as exactly as I could. I did this because I knew how mine should work. I had a reference. I knew that the component sizes were good for that size bait. That gave me a starting point and from there I experimented. This is how I learned. And I am sure how most of us got started. There may be a legal argument here but it is not a moral issue.

[RiverMan]

You hit it on the head Scoop, everything is a copy of something else. Lapala is right on too, baits today are only slight modifications to ideas that have been around forever.

I do respect your comments tho Rockhopper as "technically", some patent attorneys may interpret the use of a lure shape for example differently than a builder like myself.

Still tho, virtually every bait built today has its roots in ideas that were chopped out of a block of wood a hundred years or longer ago.

jed

[rockhopper]

Second, if any of this patent stuff matters, Gary Yamamoto should be one rich guy. He should be able to sue every Senko knockoff out there. Yet, I see more and more of them on the shelves every day. How is that?

See ,, here you don't know the" whole story", the Senko was never patented,, Gary didn't think it would be much of a seller,, it was not worth the patent fees, and it wasn't ,, that is for six years it wasn't, and then sales took off, but it was too late for Gary to file for a patent then. SO the Senko became the knock off S.P. lure of the decade,, with nothing he could do about it.

How about all the Cenitpede knockoffs? What about the Poe's knockoffs, like the Z-4? But then again, wasn't Poe's a knock off of the Mann's and the Rebel deep divers? And how about the Rat-L-Trap? Wasn't that a knockoff of the Cordell Spot? And wasn't the Pop-R a knockoff of the Abrogast popper?

Sorry, no matter what the law says, it is obvious how the law is being interpreted: If you make any slight modification to an existing lure design, you obviously can get away with a knockoff.

This is far from true,, you just never hear about it, right now I know of a dozen infringment suits going on in the fishing industry. These just never make the fishing rags (they don't want to give the looser a bad name, then they won't advertise with your mag. again), and the regular media could care less. The people involved in the suits don't want to make these public either, they don't want to make fishermen mad, they don't want anyone to know who is sueing, and who is being sued, all this does is alienate fishermen, who will take sides.

And as for being "morally" wrong, I guess we'll just have to live with that, along GM, Dodge, Skeeter, OMC, Zoom and Lucky Craft.

All those you have listed, have been involved in infringment cases, on one side or the other

[boatnik13]

Riverman! I agree.... Anyway you just want to do a few searches > like the name of your lure and your company. Thats what they want you to do. Don't tramp on someone else's name or you will be in trouble. Can copyright the business name but a pat.of a lure proble not be excepted. You aren't making a original color and most lure designs are aleady made at some time in history, but maybe a part of the lure can be pat. but is it worth it. All we need to do is modify the part and it can be legaly copied. Remember that you also become considerd a Mfc. if your making lures and thats a extra tax and local gov.rules apply. So as I say > If I make a wood lure that looks like a Zarra Spook or its look-a-likes such as a jack pot ,ect.ect. I better have a diffrent name and I might want to modify the lure a little. This way I don't step on a copyright . Unless you make your own hooks or something unique> you only need to protect your names not buy a pat. Keep the cost down and remember that someone will always be looking to copy your lure. I for one can copy any lure I see as long as it is a cylinder or flat shaped and not plastic. Just a hobbiest

[onlybass]

Looks to me that some so called inventors are not inventors-they should call themselves patenters.700 hook patents?It was invented by some prehistoric dude and the 700 patent holders are not inventors-they just modified and/or improved the hook or the hook making process.I truly believe in our laws and liberties( personally defended in war) but this moral stuff is hooey.Just because a patent has expired a person that feels they are morally superior would not make and sell that item.If it is stealing when it is patented, is it morally yet legal stealing when the patent has expired?I have read quite a few posts about all of this patent stuff and something has not been discussed much is the fact that this wonderful country has been founded upon competition.Many of your industry type patent holders fear competition. Patents can be protectionist tools.Thats why there are time limits,etc.Bagley Baits didn't whine that some guy modified their baits-they picked his brain.Jim Bagley didn't try to scare Lee Sisson away from carving crankbaits-he hired him.Like I have said before,give the whiners what they fear the most -strong aggressive legal competition.Consult a patent attorney not an (as we called them in the Army) outhouse attorney.If you are giving legal patent advise in a widely read and easily accessed media and are not legally licensed to do so are you not stealing from a patent attorney?Especially when you offer to do patent searches for $200?There goes your morals.

[cullin8s]

First of all, lure makers aren't artists.

Bull&h%t

[scoop10]

No offense meant cullin8s. I've seen your stuff, and the paint jobs are spectacular. But I see lure-making, just like weaving or boat building, as craft, not art. That's not to take anything away from great craftsmen, which have been much more important to civilization than artists, since their products have a utilitarian purpose.

Now, back to patents.

Rockhopper, I'm not surprised there have been many patent infringement case involving fishing lures. What I would wonder about is how many have been successful, and I am talking a successful suit, not lawyer intimidation here. Certainly if Skeeter sued Ranger, the outcome must not have been very successful. Same for Slug Go, since there must be two dozen soft jerkbaits on the market today. Also, wasn't there a landmark patent case involving Heddon lures, in which it successfully defended itself against patent infringement?

My understanding of patent law is that any improvement to an existing product can be patented. And that for any patent to be issued it has to have a new or novel idea. When there is nothing new or novel about a chunk of wood with a diving lip attached to it, and as long as what you are producing is slightly different than anything else on the market, I have a hard time seeing how you could be successfully sued. Obviously, a lot of the stuff you make involves new ideas, so I can see how they could easily be infringed upon. I am no attorney, but it would seem that infringing on 95 percent of the hard baits out there would be pretty difficult without actually creating an exact template of them.

[cullin8s]

rockhopper,

how much of patent law is the word of the law and how much is the spirit of the law. Is the law that says you can't make something patented at all, not even for yourself, really meant to protect the patent holder? It seems more likely that it is an interperatation of the law which does not follow the spirit of the law at all. Do you not have to show damages to sue in patent law? what kind of damages would someone making a couple of lures at home cause you?

Dwain