Fabricate spade anchor

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

......

Patent, trademark, copyright, all are there to prevent economic loss (among other reasons) and I see something and decide to build "one just like it" for my own self? There's no loss of sales to the competition. The law allows me to do that.

.......

You can't lump patent, trademark and copyright together as one. They are legally very different. There is no fair use exception for patents, so the law does not allow you to use the patent in your personal device.
Trademark has to do with being in trade, ie commercial, so private use doesn't come into play.
There are a number of fair use criteria allowing limited use, both personal and commercial, of copyright material.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"the original designer has suffered"
So?
The founding fathers were not Bhuddists, as far as I know. (Bhuddist creed: Life is suffering, then you die.) And the Pope would say suffering here is just part of martyrdom and the admission price to the kingdom of heaven, or some such thing.

Patent, trademark, copyright, all are there to prevent economic loss (among other reasons) and I see something and decide to build "one just like it" for my own self? There's no loss of sales to the competition. The law allows me to do that.

Personally, I'm not going to fab up my own anchors, but if I had the welding gear and a handy supply of the right metal stock...versus paying some motor freight company a couple of hundred bucks to carry one cross-country to me?

The purpose of protecting intellectual property does NOT include paying UPS a hefty service fee every time someone makes a transaction. That just ain't the way the system works. Fair or not.

Rationalize all you like. You apparently don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, but you wanting doesn't make it right. It's still illegal to copy a patented design.

And "no loss of sales to the competition"??? How about loss of sales to the patent-holder?

If the patent-holder decided to price the anchor at $1 million, that would be their right, and it would still be illegal for you to copy the design for your own use.

So copy an old patent-expired anchor, or design a new one. Apparently it's no big deal.

[JohnHutchins]

Things a prudent mariner may want to keep in mind when reading this thread:

1: Treat things you read on the internet with extreme skepticism

2: if you're proposing to copy or adapt something that's patented, talk to a patent lawyer. Not just any lawyer, an actual patent lawyer

3: you can call a Spade a Spade but you may also be able to call something that's not a Spade a Spade. At least in a patent infringement suit.

Because it is NOT true that copying something under patent is lawful if it's for personal or noon commercial use.

It is NOT true that you may copy a patent if you developed the idea independently

It is NOT true that if you make a few small changes or make something merely inspired by a patented product you don't violate the patent. At least not always or as a rule.

Patents,, copyrights, and trademarks are all different, they serve different purposes, they have different scopes and the law surrounding them is very different.

Patent protection can be very broad but it's very difficult for someone without patent and relevant technical expertise to know just what the scope of any given patent is. In fact in the US one cannot be admitted to practice patent law without significant technical background.

The scope of the patent can be fairly broad or it can be narrow. It all depends on the claims in the patent. Every patent -- and they're available on the PTO website will have one or more claims. Those claims determine the scope of the patent. And if the draftsman is good and the patented invention really novel and useful, it should be a real job to create a non infringing product that actually matches the functionality of the patented invention. And it will also be hard to do so with any confidence that you aren't infringing the patent.

At any rate unless you can build a better anchor it seems like a silly way to save money. And if you can build a better anchor, you should probably be taking to a patent attorney.

[foggysail]

Copy of words from the vendor:

“You can take all of the outside measurements of our Patented Spade Anchor that you like. It will not give you a clue, as to what is going on inside it. The Shank, how is it supported? How much lead is in the tip, how is it balanced? Does the lead go all the way up? Where does the lead pour start and end? So on and on...”

And small changes can subvert a patent?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"the original designer has suffered"
So?
The founding fathers were not Bhuddists, as far as I know. (Bhuddist creed: Life is suffering, then you die.) And the Pope would say suffering here is just part of martyrdom and the admission price to the kingdom of heaven, or some such thing.

Patent, trademark, copyright, all are there to prevent economic loss (among other reasons) and I see something and decide to build "one just like it" for my own self? There's no loss of sales to the competition. The law allows me to do that. ...

HS, we’ve been over this many times here already. Your understanding of US patent law is incorrect. The law specifically DOES NOT allow you to make a copy for personal use, or any other use. Economic loss to the patent owner is irrelevant when it comes to the legal question. It is illegal to make a copy without permission from the patent holder, period. End of story.

Making copies and then selling them would likely factor into the fines and/or civil settlement, but it is incorrect to say you can make a copy for personal use. Please, stop propagating this myth.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by foggysail

And small changes can subvert a patent?

Depends on the change and the patent claims. Trivial changes will generally not get around a patent.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Depends on the change and the patent claims. Trivial changes will generally not get around a patent.

Yeah Paul, you’re probably right. It really doesn’t bother me as I have zero plans to copy or for that matter design anything mechanical.

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Yeah, it is against the law. Even today mattresses and pillows have "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags. Some laws are just not enforced for private use and not for sale.

"Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law...except by the consumer."

You, the consumer, can legally remove the tag.

[cyan]

While patent law might frown upon a guy in a welding shop making a copy of a patented anchor for himself, that does not make it "wrong" on every level. Theft? Not so fast...

As someone with my name on several patents, I can promise you that MOST patents are simply improvements on previous designs. With mechanical devices, the clearest path to improvement is typically to have your hands on the original- rip it apart, rebuild it, re-create it, use it, make changes, rinse and repeat. This innovation cycle has given us the modern world that we know.

In the 1990s the late great sailing inventor Alain Poiraud ushered in the current era of "next generation anchors" with the invention of the Spearhead anchor, AKA the "Spade", patent US593421A. Frankly, many of us here owe him for providing a much better sleep at night.

However, his patent was indeed an IMPROVEMENT on others. (albeit a really good improvement). The patent itself cites no less than 8 previous patents, some of which (curiously) have very similar characteristics as the Spade. One of those citations is Sir Geoffrey Taylor's 1933 CQR patent which probably STARTED the whole modern anchor era in the first place. (my thanks to him too)

This is how technology progress works, and we are all better for it. If the OP eventually makes a generational improvement on the Spade, then we can all thank him too. If the OP wants to fabricate an exact copy of the Spade as a starting point, then more power to him! US patent law might not agree on this first step, but so what? We all stand to gain.

Finally, the 20-year term of Mr. Poiraud's original patent seems to be expiring right about now, given that the "Spearhead anchor" filings range from 1995 to 1998 depending on the country. (it is currently 2018)

Frankly, I'll probably buy another Spade because I like to sleep well at night. Maybe a Rocna? Dunno. The rollbar/no-rollbar debate is in some other thread I think...

[Mike OReilly]

Cyan, I agree if the op can build a better mouse trap, then that's great. I encourage (did encourage) him to do so. Don't build a Spade; build a better Spade-style anchor.

As to whether it is morally right to copy someone's work, I leave this to everyone's individual conscious. But regardless, the law is still clear. Making a copy of a patented item is a breach of the law. You can try and change the law if you like, but no amount of rationalizing about possible harm or benefit will change this legal fact.

[Paul L]

Cyan
Many/most patents are improvements to prior patents. If the prior patent is still active and in use in the new invention, then a device built to the new design would need a license from both patent holders.
Patents are in place to advance science by making new inventions public. In exchange for making the invention public the government grants the inventor an exclusive use period.

I kinda figured Alan's original patents must be near expiration. Too bad they lasted longer than he did. He really added significantly to modern cruising anchors.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As to whether it is morally right to copy someone's work, I leave this to everyone's individual conscious. But regardless, the law is still clear. Making a copy of a patented item is a breach of the law. You can try and change the law if you like, but no amount of rationalizing about possible harm or benefit will change this legal fact.

I can't argue with the law. (patent depos make engineers dizzy)
The moral stuff? Well, it would be easy to argue against copying someone's work for profit.
How about for personal gain? Hmm, perhaps that could be argued.
How about for better anchors for all of us? One, please.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Patents are in place to advance science by making new inventions public. In exchange for making the invention public the government grants the inventor an exclusive use period.

Yes, of course. It is also interesting how much technology is NOT patented just to keep it secret these days. Patents are a pain to enforce if you are a small player or if the offender is in China. Ask the guy who patented the selfie-stick! Soon we will all be using smart devices that make use of 7 nm semiconductors, yet you will NOT find a patent telling you how to overcome the quantum physics that prevents standard fabrication techniques from printing 7 nm transistors on a wafer.

Mechanical patents are typically in a simpler category. I doubt that the average DIY boater would think twice about violating a patent if it would make his life easier. If he didn't produce and sell the widget to others, would anyone really question his moral standing?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

...How about for better anchors for all of us? One, please.

Yes, all true. But if it's sufficiently "better" it must be sufficiently different. Therefore it wouldn't be a patent infringement.

Like I said, I would be great if the op can build a better anchor. I'm just chafing against those who perpetuate this fiction that it's legal to copy someone else's IP as long as it's only for personal use.

[hellosailor]

"You can't lump patent, trademark and copyright together as one.
They are legally very different."

1- Yes, you can.
2- And no, they aren't necessarily different. They're all artificial protections on creative aka intellectual effort.

Or, as Chairman Mao said:
"Black cat, white cat, all same. Catch mice."

You might say a black cat and a white cat are not the same. Others would disagree.