Copyright And Intellectual Property

[rabidchihauhau]

All we had was you, who i know doesn't own 68caliber, telling us it was copyrighted.

And so what? It was copyrighted, anyone could go to 68caliber.com and see the line '68CALIBER EXCLUSIVE', creation confers the rights of copyright immediately and that's all you needed to know.

The source does not matter - unless you've got a personal issue...

[rabidchihauhau]

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.

No. In the actual legal sense, it means that no one can produce or make a pneumatic trigger system that works in the manner described in PTP's patent claims.

It means: no company can manufacture and sell such a system without permission

no individual can garage bash a system without permission

no individual or company can sell/market a set of components that, when put together, accomplish the same thing as is described in the patent.

Patents don't give the holder the right to "do" anything; they give the holder the right to prevent others from doing something. Its perfectly acceptable to get a patent for a working matter transmitter and then sit on it while everyone howls.

coolhand: yes, things went bad once the PTO went on a profit footing. Now the impetus is to get as many 'good' patents out the door as quickly as possible and little attention is paid to issuances that step on each other, since the end result is that the PTO may make MORE money when someone files for an interference action.

I've long advocated a patent consortium for the paintball industry - a pool adminstered by a proper organization set up for it that calculates the patent right exchanges between companies (you use my patent, I use Bill's, he uses yours - its a wash at the end of the year so we all save licensing fees), prosecutes patents outside the industry to make more money for everyone in the industry and has a team that works at extending, continuing and enhancing its pool of IP for the benefit of all.

Of course the PB industry won't do it because it just makes too much sense...

[Foxworthy]

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?

Default no. In fact I've been arguing that it's a press release and should be free to use. It also doesn't have "Used With Permission" or anything such. I was also told that anything on 68caliber is copyrighted by 68caliber. Which I doubted that the NPPL gave it's copyrights to 68 Caliber.

I have no problem with 68caliber.com I really didn't even know about it. I always went to WARPIG when I needed news.

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.

I understand your views on Press Releases, I've agreed with that for a while. The whole argument between me and Rabid started because he told the people that the PTP article was a press release. As you can see if it was a press release people would be allowed to repost it.

When I found out about you saying it wasn't a press release I agreed with the fact it couldn't be reposted without permission.

As for the exclusive thing, it most have been the text underneath the link to the article on 68 Caliber.com as I don't see it on the article itself. I can't seem to find a link on 68 Caliber so I can see the text under the link, but I doubt your lying.

Sorry bout that, I didn't see the exclusive anywhere and I was told it was a press release. That's why I thought it was bogus.

And so what? It was copyrighted, anyone could go to 68caliber.com and see the line '68CALIBER EXCLUSIVE', creation confers the rights of copyright immediately and that's all you needed to know.

The source does not matter - unless you've got a personal issue...

Actually I don't see the line on the article.

And yes creation does confer a copyright... for the creator. Copyrights have to be legally transfer if the creator isn't the person claiming the copyright. You also told us it was a press release.

Which even Furby admits are free to repost. Since it read like a press release and their was no statement of copyright on the article (like AP articles) it makes you wonder if someone is trying to you the threat of a copyright just to inflate their own pockets. Which is wrong on a few levels. It's why people have problems with companies suing over valid patents, most people just see it as greed. And preventing someone from reposting a press release in order to get more website views seems like greed.

I've learned that this was not the case. We took your word on it being a press release because I didn't go to the 68Caliber main page to see otherwise, I just went to the article. That is what caused the initial confusion, hence my involvement in this whole thing.

And again I have no problems with 68Caliber.com, until this issue came up I didn't even know the site existed.

[rabidchihauhau]

Foxworthy,

will you give it up already?

Here's the article listing from 68caliber.com (with permission)


"News : Industry
Pro-Team Products and JT Sports going to Arbitration
68Caliber.Com Exclusive Story! Allegations of non-payment of royalties, outstanding invoices and other issues force Pro-Team Products to start arbritration proceedings
Jul 25, 2007, 12:26"

Bold is mine.

I'll try to explain this one more time, then I'm through beating this dead horse with you:


The story IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE a Press Release from PTP

The story IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE copyrighted by 68caliber and PTP

It was a PRESS RELEASE given by PTP to 68Caliber.

I know, because I sent it from PTP to 68Caliber.

The story can be re-run or re-printed by other news outlets with the permission of 68caliber.com

Your personal beliefs of what a press release is an means does not make it so. A press release is a story given to the press. IN this case the press it was given to initially was not the whole wide world but one particular outlet.

There is no mutual exclusivity between copyright and press release. The outlets that a press release is sent to get an implied right to print it - no one gave up any rights. If it was run by the NY Time, Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek, and PTP wanted to keep it out of Time magazine, they can do so.

There is nothing underhanded, wrong, bad, mean-spirited or negative in what 68caliber did, period.

You're wrong and no amount of twisting around is going to change that, so just drop it already.

[Foxworthy]

Foxworthy,

will you give it up already?

Here's the article listing from 68caliber.com (with permission)


"News : Industry
Pro-Team Products and JT Sports going to Arbitration
68Caliber.Com Exclusive Story! Allegations of non-payment of royalties, outstanding invoices and other issues force Pro-Team Products to start arbritration proceedings
Jul 25, 2007, 12:26"

I said I missed the article listing. Though I didn't call it that since I didn't know that's what it's called. The Article itself doesn't have that bolded section. I already said that my assumption was wrong based on the information that was given. I apologize as I've never seen a copyrighted press release before so it seemed odd to me and looked fishy. Again I apologize.

[y0da900]

Thanks rabid, that clears up quite a bit for me.

[Shane-O-Mac]

It means: no company can manufacture and sell such a system without permission

no individual can garage bash a system without permission

no individual or company can sell/market a set of components that, when put together, accomplish the same thing as is described in the patent.

How is it that a person cannot build it themselves for their own private use? Especially when said patent holder doesn't actually produce a product for the general public to buy and use for themselves? I do realize that is the Patents offices rule, not yours, but that doesn't make much sense. We all know that it isn't very hard to build one with off the shelf parts, and doing so for our own use is against the rules? Please elaborate.....................

Thanks,
Shane-O

[rabidchihauhau]

Well, before I go down the road of showing you where that particular thing comes from, let me make it clear once more that we're discussing general intellectual property things here - not what some company or individual is doing.

Here is the basic, introductory statement from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (www.uspto.govthe right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling

[CoolHand]

The copyright versus the patent thing is a poor comparison at best.

You MUST defend a copyright, or you lose your rights to it.

A patent can be selectively enforced with no loss of validity.

The RIAA must make a effort to go after ever infringer they find or they may not be able to go after any of them.

[rabidchihauhau]

true - when the infringement is made known to the holder.

but that's nuanced as well. They have to make a reasonable effort - whatever that means...

and patents can only "maybe" be selectively enforced. its quite possible to bring a suit in a situation where one company is allowed to infringe willy-nilly and another is being charged a ridiculous, non-competitive level fee.

I'm not here trying to provide law-school level education in this stuff - I couldn't anyways. I'm also not wasting my time in providing answers or examples that cover every single conceivable exception (talk about boring and long...). My only intent here is to raise awareness of these issues and to answer questions (that I can) in a generally correct laymans manner.

I'm assuming that most folks will understand that "the law" is complicated and full of seeming loopholes, mired in exceptions and truly complicated. THis is why it takes 3+ years of specialty education and why most folks don't pass the bar on their first time out. You want some general info and opinions on how this stuff can affect paintball - read here. You want the real answers with all the detail - go to law school or hire a very good attorney and then don't listen to them - just do what they say...

[Pneumagger]

The copyright versus the patent thing is a poor comparison at best.

You MUST defend a copyright, or you lose your rights to it.

A patent can be selectively enforced with no loss of validity.

The RIAA must make a effort to go after ever infringer they find or they may not be able to go after any of them.

Coolhand, I know what your trying to say, but did you typo?

Patents cannot be selectively enforced, correct? In order to avoid breaking anti-trust laws.

For example: If SP, WDP, and Dye did not enforce thier patents on each other and charged $1,000,000,000 royalties on the technologies to every other buisiness - thay woul soon violate anti-trust laws. I'm not a buisiness major/lawyer - so I may be wrong.

side note: companies can choose to share IP instead of both litigating against each other, though.

[CoolHand]

Coolhand, I know what your trying to say, but did you typo?

Patents cannot be selectively enforced, correct? In order to avoid breaking anti-trust laws.

For example: If SP, WDP, and Dye did not enforce thier patents on each other and charged $1,000,000,000 royalties on the technologies to every other buisiness - thay woul soon violate anti-trust laws. I'm not a buisiness major/lawyer - so I may be wrong.

side note: companies can choose to share IP instead of both litigating against each other, though.

Nope, I typed what I meant.

If you violate antitrust laws, you get into hot water with the SEC. Patent law has nothing to do with it.

The big thing I wanted to point out was that copyrights must be defended in every case (that you're aware of) in order to remain in effect, but patents do not. That's all.

[blake20]

Should be working In KCMO

CoolHand I know this is off the subject, But where in MO are you. Close to KC???

[CoolHand]

CoolHand I know this is off the subject, But where in MO are you. Close to KC???

Not really, nearly 200 miles to the east of you, about 50 miles south of Jefferson City. It's about a four hour drive from here to KC, though we did it a couple of summers ago for a tournament in Harrisionville.

[blake20]

Should be working In KCMO

So your down in the Hills. I have family Just West of Jeff. I didn't know If you were close or not. I'd invite you to one of our Friday night games in the caves up here but that's probaly too long of a drive for a 4 hr game. If your ever interested and your up this way send me a note. Once again sorry to Hijack the thread.