Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and opening up the black box?

[bossbill]

I've been on both sides myself. In pre-computer days, when I had more time and not much budget, I would build things myself. Sure, we can probably put something together for much less than buying it, and I don't know about others, but my time is better spent in other areas.

We haven't always had the J-K Audio, Broadcast Tools, Henry Engineering, etc. manufacturers. They filled a need for those of us who don't have time on our hands.

In other news, product-specific parts often sit on the shelf at a transmitter manufacturer for a long, long time between sales, and inventory costs money, just like a car in the dealership lot costs the dealer.

 

[Chuck]

Back in the 1970's I used to build and sell a variety of audio "widgets." They really weren't worth the trouble to patent or copyright. The idea was to build and sell it cheap enough that very few people would bother to copy it, simply because their time was worth more than the price of the device. I suspect that Henry, RDL and others work on the same premise...

 

[spinjector]

Thanks, Bob. I was surprised to see your name pop up, but it would make sense. And I'm sure you're correct about people not being aware of the details of R&D and manufacturing. I myself freely admit I am not a businessman. But my rationale for this post is that something huge and proprietary like a 9400 is way different than a 3-pin device in a plastic hobby box which, as others have suggested in this thread, can only be used & wired one way as stated on the PDF spec sheet from the manufacturer.

I hope I don't sound like too much of an ass/fool/idealist.

 

[rorban]

I would like to know Bob Orban's opinion on if there is a legal case here. Bob did give great insight into running a business, but didn't comment on the legality of using over-the-counter parts to copy a circuit. Of course, in our modern legal system, you can sue anybody for anything. But, would there be a case?

If your not selling your copies,

If you do freely distribute a schematic of the circuit,

If you do inform people how to build it themselves,

and provide info on where to obtain the parts,

Could somebody take legal action against you and win??

Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer and the following is not presented as legal advice…
If the black box is protected by a patent, then the infringer would definitely be legally liable. If the black block is protected by copyright and the court finds that putting the circuitry in a black box means that the company considers it a trade secret, then the infringer still may be liable, although this is not as clear-cut as when the circuitry is covered by a patent.

Bob Orban

 

[littlejohn]

There are those companies which go overbaord in this regard (present company excluded). Consider:

I bought an add-in card from an outfit called Startech which provides 4 RS-232ports and plugs into a PCI slot in one's computer. Supplied with it is a pigtail with a high density DB connector on the card, and 4 DB-9 connectors on short wires. Since the install is semi-permanent, we'll put our own high density DB on it, and wire the circuits cirectly to that connector, eliminating the rats' nest of connectors hanging on the rear of the computer.
I figure to save myself an hour of time spent with the multimeter in 'beep' mode by emailing StarTech's 'tech' support asking the pinout on the cable. Their reply? "The manufacturer considers this imformation proprietary, and thus it is not provided." I went away wondering if it's me or them who is that stupid. The two practical results of this interchange were a) I spent an hour tracing the wires; and B) we don't buy anything fro Startech any more.

 

[spinjector]

That's exactly the kind of stupidity that drives me.

Incidentally, I did the exact same thing you did, but I don't remember the brand. It was an 8-port RS232 card, used to link all our Sage ENDEC's to a PC running EAS Scriber Pro. I got the DB-68 connector and had to ring the pinout with a meter.

 

[littlejohn]

Speak of EAScriber, I got one station that simply doesn't appear on Listener, though the alerts post to the database along with the other two. eplaced the RS-232 server, cables, ever thing. Removed and reconfigured. Still two work, one doesn't. Ideas?

 

[pellmell]

If the black box is protected by a patent, then the infringer would definitely be legally liable.

Correct. The federal government provides a system to prevent people from practicing inventions of others - patents. If the manufacturer patented the black box, you cannot copy it. However, if there is a patent, the contents are publicly available in the printed patent on the USPTO.gov website. A patent (now) lasts 20 years from the filing date.

If the black block is protected by copyright

Maybe the DESIGN of the black box could be protected by copyright, but if it's just a black box, that's not possible. There is not sufficient creative content. A schematic diagram can be protected by copyright. A pc board layout can be protected by copyright. However, a copyright cannot protect a functional device. That's what patents are for.

and the court finds that putting the circuitry in a black box means that the company considers it a trade secret, then the infringer still may be liable

Unless you have contractually agreed not to do so, unless you are an employee of the manufacturer, or unless there is some other pre-existing obligation not to do so, you are free to reverse engineer any device attempting to be protected by trade secret. (This area of the law is very tricky and confusing.) A trade secret lasts until the secret is no longer a secret through no fault of a person who is obligated to maintain confidentiality.

For example, the formula for Coke is a trade secret. It is not patented. Since it is not patented, the formula has never been published. If you figure out the formula, you are free to manufacture and sell it to your heart's content. However, you cannot call it Coke. That's a trademark, and trademarks can last forever.

 

[DudeFan]

Given the facts as stated, an IC available to the general public and used as intended by the 3rd-party manufacturer of the IC, then the black box is incapable of patent protection, because anyone skilled in the art could create the same black box.

 

[Tom Wells]

Given the facts as stated, an IC available to the general public and used as intended by the 3rd-party manufacturer of the IC, then the black box is incapable of patent protection, because anyone skilled in the art could create the same black box.

UNLESS they're using it the "wrong" way, and/or in a manner not described in application data.

Even then, the patent would need to fully describe the alternative method, process, or "incorrect" way it is being used
in order to be granted the patent. If the patent does not fully describe how someone skilled in the art could
put one together and have it function, the description of the invention is incomplete and the patent will not be issued.

This is the trade which must be made in order to receive the "monopoly" protection a patent gives.
This is also why many patents do not show ful schematics, as opposed to "function blocks" which are "supposed to be"
standard, known function blocks. This makes it a good deal harder to "roll your own", and in my view,
is an abuse of the patent system. But it does offer a lot more protection to the inventor while satisfying
the letter of USPTO law.

My own patents are based on doing something in a way that is "technically' wrong, which then affords a great advantage,
eliminates parts which otherwise are considered necessary, but the presence of which would also make the circuit
"not work" for my intended application.

 

[pellmell]

If an inventor creates an invention that has utility, is novel, and is non-obvious, he can get a patent on it. It is not an inventive step to create a circuit from an app note. The patent must teach the world how to make the invention (it must be enabling), but it does not have to disclose detailed schematic diagrams so long as a person of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention without undue experimentation.