Scuba thieves and liars

[Scared Silly]

tomboyy you pretty much hit them all. One you missed that is germane to Ronzo's concerns is that copyright also pertains to designs. If someone designs a backplate the design is copyrighted and can not be copied.

Also Ronzo the little guy also needs to learn to protect them self via documents like "Nondisclosure agreements." These are pretty simple and before showing anyone an idea they should have one signed. They are cheap protection.

BTW if folks want to learn about the little guy go watch the movie "Flash of Genius" which is about Robert Kearns, the inventor of intermittent windshield wipers, he won multimillion-dollar judgments against Ford and Chrysler for using his idea.

 

[luckydays]

Sorry to tell you this but reverese engineering is not illegal. It may be unethical but there is nothing wrong with it. "Reverse engineering has long been held a legitimate form of discovery in both legislation and court opinions. The Supreme Court has confronted the issue of reverse engineering in mechanical technologies several times, upholding it under the principles that it is an important method of the dissemination of ideas and that it encourages innovation in the marketplace. "

It all comes down to money. When money is on the table, all bets are off.

In the OP post, he discussed the guy with the spring straps. That guy should have submitted a confidentiality agreement to the rep that he showed his product to and that would have protected him. BUT if you have an idea that you think is great and is a new invention (or you think it is), it should be patented. That is the best way to protect your idea. Even if the process is expensive, no inventor can complain if their ideas or inventions are stolen if they do not go through the process of getting a patent.

 

[luckydays]

Copyright only protects the original works of authorship, book, play, computer software, etc. Not the design of something unless it is a blueprint of something and that is most likely not going to be protected by copyright law. Blueprints of buildings are generally held to be protected but not designs of products. That is what patent law is for. Trademarks protect a logo or slogan.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Sorry to tell you this but reverese engineering is not illegal. It may be unethical but there is nothing wrong with it.

Unethical is wrong. Pretty simple.

Even if the process is expensive, no inventor can complain if their ideas or inventions are stolen if they do not go through the process of getting a patent.

To support the cost of securing a patent an Idea must be capable of generating enough return to cover the development costs, the marketing costs, the production costs, the costs promotion and cost of the patent.

If only economically patentable ideas are developed many innovative ideas will never be brought to market.

The true "tax" that is placed on Scuba by the talentless "idea thieves" is the disincentive for the smaller innovators.

There is an answer. It's simple really. Support the innovators, vote with your dollars. If nobody buy's the blatant knock offs the copy cats will wither.

Tobin

 

[luckydays]

I agree that all consumers should support the innovators and try to do my best but it is hard to tell the difference between the innovator and the copy-cat when looking to buy anything, especially with internet shopping. The intel processor is a great chip for a computer but so it the AMD processor. Which one is the innovator and which one is the copy cat. Unless you have the time and desire to do the research (or previous knowledge) it is hard to say. And most consumers are not going to take the time to do the research to know if they are buying the innovator or the copy-cat.

If you have a great idea that is patent worthy, the cost of the producing the invention, marketing the product, and patent for the product will come back to you in sales of your invention as you will be the only person to sell that invention to your patented region (country in which the patent was applied for) for a period of 20 years (for mechanical patents). That is the way it works. I do think that the upfront costs can be overwhelming but if I had an exclusive right to the sale and manufacture of my idea for 20 years, I would certainly patent it. I am not saying that it is right but if an inventor chooses to promote a product without a patent, they are jeopordizing their product as well as potential profits.

Depending on the item to be patented, your price range is between $10,000 and $35,000 for most mechanical type of patents. I would think that if I had the next great idea, I would certainly consult with a patent attorney to see a rough price. Had I been smart enough or lucky enough to come up with the next great idea, you can better believe I would be talking to someone to see if it could be protected and what I need to do to protect my idea.

Many innovations would not be in the market today if it were not for reverese engineering.
Just so you know, I do not support reverse engineering and I do think it is unethical but from a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with it.

Oh and just to be facetious, copying is the best form of flattery. At least that is what I hear.

 

[Tortuga68]

BTW if folks want to learn about the little guy go watch the movie "Flash of Genius" which is about Robert Kearns, the inventor of intermittent windshield wipers, he won multimillion-dollar judgments against Ford and Chrysler for using his idea.

Yeah - and it only took 25 years, $10 million of his own money in legal fees, and the destruction of his marriage. Oh, and he died 10 years later

 

[cool_hardware52]

I agree that all consumers should support the innovators and try to do my best but it is hard to tell the difference between the innovator and the copy-cat when looking to buy anything, especially with internet shopping. The intel processor is a great chip for a computer but so it the AMD processor. Which one is the innovator and which one is the copy cat. Unless you have the time and desire to do the research (or previous knowledge) it is hard to say. And most consumers are not going to take the time to do the research to know if they are buying the innovator or the copy-cat.

I can think of no comparison less fitting than semi conductors and Scuba Gear. The first involves truly huge development costs, and is ultimately produced in such numbers that the "piece" price is quite quite small, literally millions and millions of units sold to amortize all of the "non reocurring" (design, intellectual property rights protection, foundry, fab etc.)

Scuba is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, and "boutique" innovators even more so. The production volumes for the entire life of the product is often 1000's.

Again, if only ideas that will support the added cost of obtaining a patent are developed, many if not most ideas, will remain just that, an idea.

If you have a great idea that is patent worthy, the cost of the producing the invention, marketing the product, and patent for the product will come back to you in sales of your invention as you will be the only person to sell that invention to your patented region (country in which the patent was applied for) for a period of 20 years (for mechanical patents). That is the way it works. I do think that the upfront costs can be overwhelming but if I had an exclusive right to the sale and manufacture of my idea for 20 years, I would certainly patent it. I am not saying that it is right but if an inventor chooses to promote a product without a patent, they are jeopordizing their product as well as potential profits.

Depending on the item to be patented, your price range is between $10,000 and $35,000 for most mechanical type of patents. I would think that if I had the next great idea, I would certainly consult with a patent attorney to see a rough price. Had I been smart enough or lucky enough to come up with the next great idea, you can better believe I would be talking to someone to see if it could be protected and what I need to do to protect my idea.

I hold some patents, and I routinely design, develop and produce new products for Scuba. You can "believe" whatever you want. Let me know if your "beliefs" get revised if you ever act on any of your ideas.

Tobin

 

[DwayneJ]

As a hang glider pilot, I always joke that scuba diving and hang gliding are basically the same sport - Expensive up front costs, considerable travel to flying sites, lugging 80lbs of gear around and a lot of waiting.

There are only a few hang gliding manufacturers and the industry is so small, very few "ideas" if any are patented. Worse, there are documented situations of employees from one company moving to the second and suddenly new model gliders end up with features from the other company. Clearly there has been a slow demise of the smaller hang glider manufacturers over the years and competition between the remaining companies is tough.

Here's the rub - There is competition and the hang gliding sport as a whole benefits from new technologies developed by a single company. If every idea was "locked down" through patents, innovation overall would slow and possibly lead to the loss of a few remaining manufacturers.

The scuba industry is much larger and is dominated by some very large companies but is peppered with many small/local companies. My concern is if major invention is captured by one of the large companies, prohibitive licensing fees may make it hard for the smaller players to survive. Since its law in this country, we have no choice about the use of patents but in an ideal world licensing fees need to realistic.

Competition breeds innovation.

 

[diverbob]

Ooh, oooh. I know. :bounce4: Oooh. It's money, right. Ooh, oooh. Is it money?

Are these designs worth more than a Senate seat in Illinois?

 

[Scubakevdm]

Personally, I find, as I implied in my earlier post, that that the majority of the industry is dishonest. I think that getting hung up on patents misses the broader point that probably 95% of the gear on the market today is designed with little marketing gimmicks that actually detract from the utility of the equipment. The only actual function of these gimmicks is to trick people into buying gear. These are aimed at divers who are either entry level, or through the low bar mentality of scuba training in general have never progressed beyond entry level knowledge, even after having made many dives. In fact, probably 80% of the time their instructors haven't even progressed past this point. A good bit of gear is designed, in my opinion on the premise that the end user simply won't know enough not to buy it.