Copyright And Intellectual Property

[rabidchihauhau]

Another thread veered off from its subject (PTP in arbitration against JT Sports) and onto the subject of copyrights and related intellectual property issues.

While I do not have a law degree, I have worked in the IP field for a number of years AND I'm smart enough to have a good attorney and know when to punt questions to him.

(I do have a year and a half of law school, which tends to make me very dangerous, as I've got just enough knowledge to get myself in trouble and I'm not sworn in as an officer of the court...)

What all the above means is that while I may be able to explain things legal regarding IP, based on my working experience with it, you shouldn't rely on what I put in here if you're dealing with legal issues. Particularly in the area of IP, you should seek out and use a specialist. I've personally run into situations where it appears that the logical and sensible thing to do is NOT the way to go, because some earlier, obscure case set the rules in a different direction. Unless you've got intimate knowledge of these things, you can find yourself down the rabbit hole with Alice.

The primary issue discussed elsewhere was the issue of copyrights, the web and, in particular, how they relate to news stories published on the web.

My personal contention is that many of the 'younger', 'internet' generation seem to think that ownership of ideas is not right (which I agree with), but that many confuse "ideas" with an "expression" of an idea.

This kind of thing gets played out all the time on AO when folks discuss pneumatic trigger systems. Pro-Team Products gets roundly attacked for trying to "control" the concept of a pneumatically operated high ROF marker system, when what they are actually trying to control is their concept of how such a thing is accomplished.

Copyrights get confused in the same way. Remember the movie Independence Day? Aliens invade the Earth and try to destroy humanity. The "idea" here is nasty aliens invade the Earth.

Well, if the "idea" is what is controlled, then the estate of H.G. Wells would be suing the producers of ID4, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, Plan 9 From Outer Space and a whole host of movie, television and book writers, publishers and producers.

Fortunately, its not the idea, but the specific presentation. All of those other movies were about aliens invading the Earth, but they were different presentations of the idea, and therefore not copyright infringements.

So, what do you guys think? Is it ok for an author or inventor to try and protect their intellectual property rights in a presentation of an idea? Do you think that a "presentation" is the same thing as a "concept"?

[Lohman446]

This kind of thing gets played out all the time on AO when folks discuss pneumatic trigger systems. Pro-Team Products gets roundly attacked for trying to "control" the concept of a pneumatically operated high ROF marker system, when what they are actually trying to control is their concept of how such a thing is accomplished.

I agree with your base ideas stated fully. The new internet generation seems to not think that "ownership" of IP is important. Free movies, songs, whatever represent this. However, somewhere in here they still think they should get to be a rockstar and have millions of dollars coming in, or if they invent something great it should make them rich. Apparently the government is just going to hand them the money because IP is unimportant. I think this generation though always exists. The teenagers copying tapes for instance. I think they slowly grow up and abandon it (not always because of morals), to be replaced by others behind them. The worry here is that it became so easy (copying a tape on most home equipment took time, and was a pain to monitor, quietly so as not to get interference) with today's readily available technology that people would nto simply abandon it. People gave up copying tapes as they had income (for the most part) because doing so was a pain, and you had to have a friend with the music you wanted, there was no internet to search it down on.

HOWEVER.... modern patents have gotten out of hand. I highlighted this portion of your post for a reason. If I recall, from seeing this patent, in addition to the exact system of operation described in the patent there are various "alternates" that include things that have nothing at all to do with pneumatic assist (like magnetic). I could be wrong on the exacts, but I know there are many many alternate concepts defined in that patent. So while the patent may only consider one method of getting there - it has been very very carefully (and well) written to cover as many possible ways of getting there as possible, some which the author / designer probably didn't even have a realistic expectation of being feasable.

To go towards "the devil", because people seem far more willing to point and cry foul. SP's "trigger switch" patent, includes various other "alternates", which SP expects protected even other ways of getting an electronic paintball marker. Be it an optical or HES sensor, SP would argue they are simply alternate ways of getting around the "switch" patent (which I think they may have been desiged as) and should thus be protected.

So well we argue that a patent does not cover an idea it is not entirely accurate. Today patents are written to cover as much of an idea as possible, not just the actual implementing of that idea.

[Foxworthy]

I only had a few issues with the copyrights of 68caliber. Fair Use and Enforceability.

I argued fair use because Rabid claimed it was a press release. Press Releases are intended to be spread. Even AP doesn't copyright their press releases. If it's not a press release then fair use no longer applies.

Enforceability is the real problem on the Internet. Without being registered the copyright can only garner actual damages. Which means that 68calber would have to sue and prove that they lost money because of it. Now the fact that PBN put them on a swear filter and they now have a number that shows how many visits PBN cost them makes it enforceable.

Like I said before it's hard to prove how many people aren't going to your site based on forum views. Just because someone read a forum post doesn't mean they would have gone to your site. Which make sit hard to prove actual damages. PBN by forcing people to go to 68caliber have now shown how many people PBN stole from 68caliber. Which also means that 68caliber has a nice way to prove actual damages. Based on the membership numbers of PBN and ratio to the membership numbers of any other forum they now can determine a actual damage cost for any forum.

So my stance on the enforceability of the copyrights is gone. It is now easy for 68caliber to prove how many views a forum can cost him.

My other issue was with the fact that 68caliber is copyrighting PTP and NPPL stuff. They didn't create the articles and I'm pretty sure they didn't buy the copyright off the NPPL at least. Used with permission and copyrights are two different things. That bothers me.

[BigEvil]

Not as many people have problems with it as you think. What the majority of folks do have issues with, the underhanded way in which these companies try to get and enforce these patents .

[RRfireblade]

Not as many people have problems with it as you think. What the majority of folks do have issues with, the underhanded way in which these companies try to get and enforce these patents .

[rabidchihauhau]

whoa, couple hours and I'm back to writing novels....

Lohman:

I understand your points and can see how you come to the conclusions you do without inside information. Allow me to try and elaborate a little.

The pneu-mag trigger system was not originally conceived as a pneumatic trigger system; the initating concept was "how do we get around electronic switches?"

This was followed by: there are at least two ways - with pneumatics only and with magnets only.

Naturally, along the way, we thought up several other solutions and looked at various combinations of different solutions.

Ultimately, the main thrust of our R&D was in the realm of pneumatics only, since we thought there were great possibilities there, as well as a huge degree of irony: it turned out that the industry going electronic actually ended up revealing that the real solution was not electronics, batteries, chips et al, but maximizing the mechanics and pneumatics...

If that technology matures, it will turn out that electronics were a left turn for gun technologies.

Now we come to the patent stuff. Any good writer of patents is SUPPOSED to anticipate any manner in which A: their basic concept can be developed and B: any work-arounds that competitors might come up with.

This causes you to write things in as deliberately as vague a manner as possible. There are however, still rules that must be followed, and one of the ones observed by PTP applications was the one that says that anyone 'skilled in the art' ought to be able to take your drawings and specifications and re-create the working device.

What this precludes is a practice that many others have used and gotten away with, which is the self-defining thingamajig. Here's how it works:

A PTP application might include language such as "pneumatic valve, mechanical valve, valve actuated by a pneumatic ram..." which is perfectly allowable since anyone skilled in the art is familiar with those named devices and their variations. The self-defining thingamajig would use language like "the electronic fretzer valve"

Since there is no such common thing, the applicant can define it as being anything they want it to be: their competitors come out with a work-around to their pneumatic valve based system using a ram opening and closing a mechanical valve and they claim infringement, since what they meant by fretzer valve includes a ram operating a mechanical valve.

You will also see claims in PTP applications that go from the vague to the more specific. In these cases it might appear that we're heading down the self-defining road, but we're not, we're following standard application processes. An initial claim might use the phrase 'actuating means' and while that sounds self-defining, its not, because in later claims what we mean by that phrase is described, and limited by our descriptions. You're supposed to write your initial claims "to cover the world". Other folks never lose phrases like 'actuating means' in their later claims.

I realize that its a fine distinction, but PTP's intent when writing applications was never to 'own the world' or stifle other's creation, it was to follow the rules and get the coverage we deserved for the things that we legitimately created.

You're right that the application seems to cover a multiplicity of means - and it does. The application was actually split by the PTO into two separate ones (both of which have been granted, which will tell you that they shouldn't have been split in the first place) since our basic "invention" was a non-electronic and/or non-switch-based high ROF paintball gun.

Foxworthy: yes, MOST press releases are issued for everyone and anyone to publish and reprint. Howver, as has been pointed out to you previously, that particular "press release" was issued to 68caliber as an EXCLUSIVE.

Here we have a special situation in which PTP wanted the news to get out, but they also wanted it handled in a particular manner and fashion. They chose to do this by offering the story to a single news source that had agreed to perform this service. The agreement was that 68caliber would allow others to reprint the story - so long as they asked permission and credited 68caliber as the source.

68Caliber is not copyrightiing PTP and NPPL stuff. Its made no claims to copyright, has not tried to stop others from running releases from NPPL that are clearly for general distribution & etc. I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion. It is, however, possible for more than one person to own a copyright in something: for instance, a song writer may own a copyright on lyrics and a band performing the song owns a copyright on their performance of it. If you want to cover the song, you might have to pay both parties for the rights...

You may also be seeing a general copyright notice on various pages that carry materials from other sources - but that's not necessarily a claim of ownership or copyright - except to the materials that are actually prepared by 68caliber, such as the page layout & etc.

And you're right - damages in internet cases of this sort are assessed by looking at loss of business and traffic is the way to make that assessment. If you are interested in looking into this further, do a google on 'Ellison vs AOL' to see a PERFECT definition of why forum posters AND their hosts are engaging in infringement when they run someone else's works without permission.

Oh btw - 68calier is not MY website. Its Dale Ford's. I'm a friend of Dales and help out when and where I can. The same goes for PTP, owned by Forest Hatcher and wife Tracy.

WHEW.

[AirAssault]

Hmmm who gives a hoot.

[rabidchihauhau]

anyone who writes something, performs something or invents something

[RogueFactor]

Not as many people have problems with it as you think. What the majority of folks do have issues with, the underhanded way in which these companies try to get and enforce these patents .

This must be Quoted For Truth. And isnt limited to Smart Parts

[y0da900]

Rabid, since a good example of this seems to be the pneumatic trigger, and it so quickly veered in that direction, I've got some questions about it. You say here that what PTP wants to control is their concept on how to accomplish this general idea, but I think many of us have long been under the impression that the intent with the patent and its attempted enforcement was to cover all triggers that operate pneumatically (the previously repeated mention of the generic term "force element" in the patent). Is there any cut and dry description that you could give us that clarifies either/or the intent of the patent, or the attempted enforcement of the patent? I know that based on the impression I had that it was meant as all encompassing, that the prior art of long existing pneumatically operated trigger systems always rubbed me the wrong way.
Sorry if this is further off topic than you meant this thread to go, but it would shed a lot of light to me on where the lines are drawn for what is an idea, and what is an embodiment of that idea.

[rabidchihauhau]

Certainly;

PTP was granted a patent for a set of claims covering various methods of making a pneumatic trigger system.

PTP has the intention of enforcing its rights against any similar system that falls within the body of the claims in its granted patents.

That is a right and a duty of a patent holder and nothing more or less than anyone else has done regarding patents in the paintball industry.

Should a pneumatic trigger design come along that does not fall within the design covered by PTP's claims, PTP would not do anything except wish the inventor good luck with their invention.

Now we'll shift to the personal, having nothing to do with PTP, its patents or its intentions.

I (that's me and me alone) believe that the design created by PTP and the subsuquent patent application that I wrote for PTP anticipates 99% of the marketable methods of designing a pneumatic trigger system; note that I said 'marketable'; this implied such things as economical to build, capable of being mass-produced efficiently, safe for the end user, etc., etc. I'm sure there are probably non-commercial methods of accomplishing the same thing (although I haven't seen any to date).

The statement you are referring to as having come from PTP regarding its desire for global domination in the pneumatic trigger realm is a mis-read of some posts that I (and Jay) put on AO when we were being flooded by people who wanted the system in their hands now-now-now, as well as some discussion regarding someone else's design and whether it was covered by PTP's patent or not.

My statement was a boast about how good I was at writing broad-based but acceptable claims for patent applications - not PTP's claim about what their intentions were. I was proud of the fact that I had taken the initial concept and spun out about 12 different ways to make the damn thing and, in identifying those methods, I closed down ways in which a competitor could easily circumvent the patent claims. Jay will well remember that while I was writing this application, I was a constant presence at his bench, as if 'this might not work' or 'if that might not work' or 'what about using half of this one and half of that one'.

Before I go further, a couple of things in my own defense. I wrote the application the way I did because it was my job to do the best I could for PTP. Had I been working for anyone else, they would have received the same due diligence on my part. Also, my anticipation of other "embodiments" of the design is what anyone who wants to get granted a solid patent will do. Go take a look at some of the paintball formula patents. You'll see things like "between .05 and .95 percent of chemical x"; those guys didn't make up those numbers, they figured out what the minimum and maximum workable range for that chemical was, and then they wrote it into their claims in order to cover all the bases. Know why? Because the shell or fill of the ball won't work with less than .05% of that chemical and won't work with more than 95% of that chemical. That means that they wrote their claims SO THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD USE ANY VARIATION OF THAT FORMULA without infringing on their patent.

Dirty pool or good business? Good business, because those are the rules. Now, its up to some other inventor to come up with a workable, marketable, economic formula that doesn't use ANY chemical x in order to get around the patent, or pay the licensing fees. That's the way it works.

There's no point in paying for an application if someone in a garage can move the location of one screw and avoid having to pay licensing fees. THAT'S why I considered it my job to think up every conceivable good, bad or hare-brained way of doing the same thing that PTP was doing and writing it into the application.

If I'm bad for doing that, than everyone who ever wrote a halfway decent patent application is equally bad.

BUt it wasn't PTP making claims of conquering the world, it was me making claims of writing good patent applications.

And BTW, I'm not working for anyone except myself right now, so if you are looking to save some money on a patent, I might be able to help. I can get you through a preliminary search and the provisional application process for not that much money. I'll sign your NDA/Non-Compete or you can use mine and I only take one application on the same subject at a time, so if I refuse to take your work, its a sure bet that I'm working on an application for something similar. I'm not an attorney or a patent agent though, but my work has been reviewed by such and has saved folks both money and time. AND, if I do write something for you, you can bet that it will cover every conceivable method I can think of...

[Ninjeff]

This is an interesting thread. Im enjoying the read.

However, im curious as to what it all means for me, the end consumer.
Does this mean i can only buy pnuematic frames from PTP? Explain in laymans terms please.

[Foxworthy]

68Caliber is not copyrightiing PTP and NPPL stuff.

You may also be seeing a general copyright notice on various pages that carry materials from other sources - but that's not necessarily a claim of ownership or copyright - except to the materials that are actually prepared by 68caliber, such as the page layout & etc

Oh btw - 68calier is not MY website. Its Dale Ford's. I'm a friend of Dales and help out when and where I can. The same goes for PTP, owned by Forest Hatcher and wife Tracy.

I cut down your post so I could address the the issue we disagree on.

The original PTP article had nothing on it stating that it was a 68caliber exclusive. The only copyrights on the page are those that you mention are for page layout and what not. Which is what I thought they were.

All we had was you, who i know doesn't own 68caliber, telling us it was copyrighted. Now to me that looked bogus since, it was written by PTP, nothing on 68 Caliber itself says that the article was used with permission or that the copyright was owned by 68 caliber. It looked like a bogus attempt to force people to go to his site using things he didn't actually own.

Other than the copyrights for the site itself nothing says that you can't use the article whole as it seems that 68caliber did. They also have no terms of use to define what on their site is there to be used.

The NPPL article I linked wasn't under a 68caliber copyright and could be reposted fully. Since the original NPPL source doesn't even claim a copyright. Nothing denotes the difference between the two.

That's why I argued the way I did. It seems that 68caliber was taking NPPL articles off there site wholesale and reposting them, but are telling people not to do the same to the stuff on their site.

That doesn't seem right.

[CoolHand]

That's why I argued the way I did. It seems that 68caliber was taking NPPL articles off there site wholesale and reposting them, but are telling people not to do the same to the stuff on their site.

That doesn't seem right.

How did you know that the NPPL didn't simply send the press release to 68 cal? You start from default assuming that they jacked it from the NPPL and falsely applied their copyright notice. What would lead you to believe such a thing? Do you have some prior disagreement with 68 cal, or was that just a jumping off point for the argument (and I don't mean that to sound harsh or accusatory in any way, an argument has to start somewhere with some set of predefined information)?

It just strikes me odd how people (especially in PB) seem to always view anyone who protects their rights through legal recourse in a negative light. Sometimes, yes, these sorts of things are started under dubious conditions, but that is not always (or dare I say even usually) the case.

I dunno, I'm coming into this whole fracas in the middle of the story, so I don't know all the details on either side. My opinions at this time are formed solely from what I've read in this and a couple of other threads here on AO, and the general feeling you get from users here and on PBN whenever anything like this pops up.

Exchanges in recent memory:

SP gets issued a dubious patent and proceeds to strong arm industry small fry.
Users react negatively towards SP, then forget about it and buy SP stuff anyway.

Hybrid uses copyrighted images without permission and gets caught when a random user inquires about said images to their owners.
Users react to decry the "rat"'s actions with nary an ill word for Hybrid's disregard for the law. The fuss dies down and Hybrid is as/more popular as ever.

PTP invents many things for the PB world, and patents a great many of them. DW also patents a similar system at a later date. Both patents issue, and neither party pursues them for various reasons.
Users applaud DW's innovation and congratulate them on their patent's issue. At the same time, they decry PTP's patent for holding up the production of said device, and stifling innovations in the industry. Neither company does anything either with the device or to each other, and the users more or less forget about it, except to exchange jabs in unrelated arguments.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how the users react to these situations (save that the best PR department seems to generally carry the day). Right and wrong no longer enter into it at all, which is rather sad IMO.

EDIT:

I also have to say that I agree with Rabid in that you must play by the rules, even if they are stupid, or you put yourself at a grave disadvantage in the business world. That is not to say that if you disagree with how things are done currently you should not do anything in your power to change the rules. That's the way of things. You go through the process, you pays your money, and you takes your chances.

I understand many folk's dislike for the way thing are currently, but if you are in business, it is not at all in your best interest to "protest" this dislike to the industry by not protecting your technology. It's altruistic to be sure, but it's also a near sure bet that you will be taken advantage of by someone with more money and fewer morals than yourself. It's a sad state of affairs to be sure, but that is how it is currently.

Now, just because it sucks now, does not mean that things cannot be turned around. It just means that you're doing yourself disservice to not protect what is yours until such a time as you can change the laws and regulations to make it unnecessary.

I honestly hope there is a way out of the current patent law situation, I truly do. The way it seems to me is that under the current system, whoever has the most money triumphs. If they own a patent of dubious lineage, they have the cash to defend it at all cost. If you have a patent (dubious or otherwise), they have the cash to steam roller you with lawyers and paperwork until you fold and they can do as they please (or offer to buy your patent for a pittance out of "kindness"). This IMO flies directly in the face of what the patent system was set up for, and signals in no uncertain terms that an overhaul is more than due.

[Furby]

For the record, the NPPL sends me press releases as a matter of course, and often I have them up on the site before everyone else. However, I don't own any copyright on them, as they're press releases. Yeah, someone could cut it and paste it, but so what? It's a press release given to the general paintball public, intended for distribution to them as a whole.

As for the PTP story, Forest was aware that Steve and I have been friends for several years, and in order to ensure that his release of information would be handled appropriately, I (68Caliber.Com) was given an exclusive on that particular release. Since it was given to me exclusively, I own the copyright on the presentation of that information, which went to me only. The slugline on that article did in fact state that it was a 68Caliber.Com exclusive.

The issue I had with other websites cutting and pasting stuff was mainly original stuff that I or a Gnome personally wrote specifically for presentation on 68Caliber.Com. A large percentage of event coverage and reviews I do make it into the various magazines, but they compensate me for the right to print those articles. When a magazine like PB2X buys an article from you, they're not so much paying for the article itself, but for the right to print it in their magazine...when you write something, you own it. That ownership is called copyright.

It's different than patents in that in a patent you're claiming ownership of an idea or invention...with copyright, you're claiming ownership of the presentation of a particular idea. For instance, my review of the Bob Long Closer: I wrote the review of that marker, and I own that presentation of it. It doesn't mean that I own the right to reviews on the Closer, JUST that PARTICULAR presentation of it.

You know, it's funny: Paintball is still such a young sport, and has so much to learn. When I first started making a stink about violations of copyright at various sites out there, some of them immediately started the hate, coming off with this nonsense that 68Caliber.Com was the "Smart Parts of Paintball Media". When you bust your *** for 8 years at something and finally start seeing some recognition and support for what you've done, only to have people too lazy to steer their browser to where it should be going for accurate, timely information, coverage and reviews stealing from you, then you can come to me with your hate.

Hope this helps, and Steve, you're a Prince for shouting from the mountaintop...again.