Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 09:29:00 -1000 From: eric.curtis@homebase.com (ERIC CURTIS) Message-Id: <8A6A365.1A8800013A.uuout@homebase.com> Organization: Home Base BBS - St. Thomas, ON. - 519-633-2374 - 5 Nodes Subject: Re: Backtracker by Revolu (Ray Miller) writes: CC>>To make a copy of something for your own personal use is NOT illegal nor CC>>is it immoral! Even if the guys from REV don't like it, there is little CC>>they can do about your building something for your own use. HOWEVER, if CC>>you build a copy of their kite and sell it, you are infringing upon their CC>>right to be the only supplier of the product to the public - a distinct CC>>infringement of their legally held copyright. Their copyright protects CC>>them as the legal owners of the design and as such, prohibits anyone from CC>>making monetary gain from the sale of their product. CC>>So, if you want to make your own for your own use, do it. then Carl Crowell wrote: CC>Ahhh.. another poor fool who sent in his $9.95 for the 'Kellogs Frosted Flak CC>Law Degree'. I ought to cross-post this to biz.law so more people can laugh CC>at your expence. CC>The fact is that if the Rev guys wanted, they could walk up and down the bea CC>and file suit against anyone that has a clone. It just so happens that the CC>do not because it would not do them any good. Actually Carl, what you say is true... in the U.S. In other countries, such as Canada, which follows English common law, what Ray says is correct. You can make a copy of a patented item for your own personal use, under the 'fair use' provisions. The illegality only enters into it when you *sell* the patented item. After all, the original purpose of patents was not to protect the inventor, so much as to allow the public acess to new inventions, which is why patents expire, and why anyone can get copies of the patent and the drawings.. After all, the ultimate protection is simple secrecy, which is why Coca-Cola's recipe has never been patented, and remains secret after ninety years. As an aside, it's my understanding that the Hadzicki's never applied for a patent for the Rev in Canada and therefore it would be perfectly legal to make *and* sell copies here. I'd want to check it pretty carefully, before I tried, though :). Eric Curtis & Anne Sloboda Boreal Kites eric.curtis@homebase.com Sparta, Ont., Canada * OLX 2.1 TD * Canadian DOS: Yer sure, eh? [oui/non] = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 15:49:00 -1000 From: perry.farmer@thefarmbbs.com Message-Id: Organization: THE FARM BBS Subject: Re: Backtracker by Revolu >Actually Carl, what you say is true... in the U.S. In other countries, >such as Canada, which follows English common law, what Ray says is >correct. You can make a copy of a patented item for your own personal >use, under the 'fair use' provisions. The illegality only enters into it >when you *sell* the patented item. Kite Magazine recently said just the opposite, that you could not make one for your personal use. This came out about a month after they posted the article on the Quad Line Elephant. Perry p.s. Not sure if they are correct or not, but they did post an opinion by a lawyer the following month and also I have heard of this elsewhere since then. I have a hard time with a lot of this since most kites in one way or another are take offs of most others. That is with few exceptions most kites are just variations of a theme. T H E F A R M ___________________________________________________________ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ^. .^ ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ( @ ) ___________________________________________________________ WHERE HOGS GATHER TO PLAY = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 02:42:33 -1000 From: tom@minster.york.ac.uk (Tom Jackson) Message-Id: <797604153.14164@minster.york.ac.uk> Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England Subject: Re: Backtracker by Revolu : CC>at your expence. The fact is that if the Rev guys wanted, they could walk up and down the beach and file suit against anyone that has a clone. It just so happens that the : CC>do not because it would not do them any good. With all these images on web-pages "Here's my latest Rev clone" maybe they won't need to walk up and down the beach. They'll go surfing and find them all... The mind boggles at the legal implications here... tom. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 03:54:38 -1000 From: pp@wsinti10.win.tue.nl (Peter Peters) Message-Id: <3me1mu$71q@wsinti10.win.tue.nl> Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Subject: Re: Backtracker by Revolu tom@minster.york.ac.uk (Tom Jackson) writes: >With all these images on web-pages "Here's my latest Rev clone" maybe >they won't need to walk up and down the beach. They'll go surfing and >find them all... I hope I solved the problem now :-) http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/pp/kites/kitelist/mykites.html -- Peter Peters, pp@win.tue.nl, http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/pp/ Like kites.... look at http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/pp/kites/ and http://www.kfs.org/kites/ -- Peter Peters, pp@win.tue.nl, http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/pp/ Like kites.... look at http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/pp/kites/ and http://www.kfs.org/kites/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =