Lure Copies

[rockhopper]

rockhopper' date='

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[/quote']

That part of the law was changed a few years back,, so that "personal" use was infringing, They main reason for this was because of so many people making "patented" software copies, and the ease of making them, you may say that making something by hand is diffrent, the USPO does not

[Husky]

rockhopper' date='

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[/quote']

That part of the law was changed a few years back,, so that "personal" use was infringing, They main reason for this was because of so many people making "patented" software copies, and the ease of making them, you may say that making something by hand is diffrent, the USPO does not

I feel the urge to put in my $.02, here. First, what is unique about a specific lure that its' patent applies to? I've seen "Bombers" that look and have no discernable difference to a Cordell Redfin from the 70's. Patents are finite with a 17 year life and one renewal, if memory serves. That would mean that any lure patent 34 years ago now falls into public domain. Any lure from '71 and back could be copied freely.

The point I'm making is that you must know to what the patent applies to, to say that there is an infringement.

[rockhopper]

I feel the urge to put in my $.02, here. First, what is unique about a specific lure that its' patent applies to? I've seen "Bombers" that look and have no discernable difference to a Cordell Redfin from the 70's. Patents are finite with a 17 year life and one renewal, if memory serves. That would mean that any lure patent 34 years ago now falls into public domain.

Actually it's any patent that is now 20 years from the filing date

Any lure from '71 and back could be copied freely.

The point I'm making is that you must know to what the patent applies to, to say that there is an infringement.

Any lure from 84 back now,, and it is true you need to know what "part" is patented

[bladesandbaits]

I hereby give anyone permission to copy any patent I have (up to this date relative to fishing) or duplicate them for personal use and profit. :grin:

Disclaimer: This does not apply to my 3 machine patents. 2 Utility and 1 Design.

Just wanted to razz a little LOL sorry.

PSS. [b]Not wanting to boast but the part about machine patents is true.LOL[/b]

[LaPala]

Dear Mr. Rockhopper,

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

This says a lot. And I personally resent this sweeping statement.

Have you over look the fact that there ARE people who invent with genuine intend of helping others and not putting $$ as the top most priority, some inventions are in fact given freely to the community to use without ever seeking a patent, or a patent was filed because there are people who would be willing to file & make a profit out of it & take from the community when the intention was for it to be freely available.

Some items that come to mind are:

1. Solar Stove invented for the hard core poor of India.

2. The Linux OS which is strictly not an invention, but hell Bill Gates has his Microsoft Windows protected.

I am sure there are tons of other items if we are willing to come down from our holy pedestal & take a look around at other people who are genuinely sincere about giving and sharing.

Looking closer to home in Tackleunderground, recently Bo ( http://www.tackleunderground.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5271 ) gave out a brand new airbrush to a member in TU voluntarily , no strings attached. (Can the guy who received the air brush confirm this? or someone else who are thankful of what they've receive here care to voice up?)

So my point is --- it has been the spirit of TU as a community of tackle makers to share information, techniques freely without seeking monetary gain. Just look at the tutorial, and past post, everyone chipping in to help a fellow stuck in doing something, I'm sure none of us got paid for it!!! And sometimes I think what some guys here come up with are getting silent attention from some major manufacturers, but they still share it with the TU community. The spirit is great, I'm sure a lot of us here have benefited immensely from the knowledge of others. And its not all about $$$$. It's a passion that we all have, to do, to make, to create & in between maybe copy & improve on some old concepts. So this makes us all immoral patent infringing forgers???!!!! BULLS*^T.

[b']PSS. Not wanting to boast but the part about machine patents is true. LOL[/b]

Could this be the one that is for a lure duplicating machine??? there's some "news" circulating in the grape-vine Now I'm sure you'd send me a copy of that design & consent to build

[LaPala]

And let some pictures speak about originality in baits & lures too:

[rockhopper]

[

quote="LaPala]Dear Mr. Rockhopper,

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, those who claim they don't invent for money are lying to themselves

This says a lot. And I personally resent this sweeping statement.

People do not file for patents (a patent's only use is to keep others from making, selling and using an invention) just to let everyone make, use, and sell, an invention. Patents cost a good deal of money, and why ion the world would someone throw money away on one, just to say they don't need one, they are giving away their invention ? They can do that , without a patent.

Those of you here, if you came up with a truely new design and some manufacturer saw it, and offered you 5 million for it, there is not a single one here, that would not sign that contract, Now there are many here who would not take the effort, to file for a patent and then try to market their new design to a manufacturer,, most because they know the odds are slim to none that they could license it, or they just don't want to take the time and money needed to do so for such a small chance of return, but if they got such a offer as above, they sell out in a heart beat, all those noble reasons seam to evaporate.

I too , give away many new ideas and techniqes, those that I know have no value in licensing, yet have value to the fisherman

[LaPala]

Those of you here, if you came up with a truely new design and some manufacturer saw it, and offered you 5 million for it, there is not a single one here, that would not sign that contract, Now there are many here who would not take the effort, to file for a patent and then try to market their new design to a manufacturer,, most because they know the odds are slim to none that they could license it, or they just don't want to take the time and money needed to do so for such a small chance of return, but if they got such a offer as above, they sell out in a heart beat, all those noble reasons seam to evaporate.

It seems u have given up on the better side of human nature & prescribe to the monetary rule of life. I have nothing further to say.

(My respect goes to Sister Mary, those who gave both their time, money & career toward war relief efforts & the recent tsunami episode)

[Mallard]

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 am not sure I follow your logic. If an invention is patented the patent holder owns the rights to the invention so if you copy it you are stealing from the patent owner. If the patent has expired then no one "owns" the rights. If nothing is owned, then nothing is stolen.

From a moral stand point, I think it depends on whether the the lure is still being made. If the orignal maker or their assignee are still making the lure and producing an income from selling the lure then if you make copies you could potentially harm the orignal maker. If the patent has expired and the former owner of the patent has ended production, then why not make the bait yourself if there is still a demand? Who would be stolen from? Who would be harmed?

[Skeeter]

I forget who the owner of Reaction Lures is. Maybe someone could refresh my memory. But did you see the interview with this guy this past saturday on Loudmouth Bass? Did you listen to his response about folks copying his lure designs?

Skeeter

[cullin8s]

His name is Andre Moore, he is also a Professional fisherman on both BASS and FLW tours, his lure company is making enough money to keep him fishing both tours. Yes i saw that, i have it on DVR actually. He said that its not worth 500k to keep a few people from copying his baits. He also said he named his baits the semi Xrated names because the industry needs to lighten up a little bit, not to offend anyone. Then at the end of the show he listed some of the names of the baits and colors and the bleeped it all (even tho that was mostly a joke most could be said on the air) then they said a few F words (bleeped of course) to each other in their closing comments in good fun of course and i personally thought it was hilarious stuff. The sweet beaver though a double meaning is actually named after Beaver Lake in AR, he won the Walmart Open there in i believe it was 2000, that money (200K) helped get his lure company off the ground, then he won again this year, i was at the final days weigh in.