Patent versus Copyright

[deema]

I was spurred to this thread by listening this morning to the news about how unfair it is for the song creators with streaming.
It may be just me, but I find the laws surrounding copyright and patents to be really unfair. To register copyright, you just add the C logo and a bit of text and you are done. You get rights to the piece of work for life plus 70 years. That’s terrific.
Patents on the other hand require you to spend over £100K if you want one world wide and only last for 14 years for a design patent. Most engineers work for a company and part of their contract requires them to sign over all inventions to the company. If they work for themselves few can afford the patent in the first place or if granted can afford to defend the patent should it be copied. They derive absolutely no benefit from their contribution and invention.
To me, developing say the MRI scanner or the World Wide Web versus coming up with a popular tune is a no brainier. I would far rather value the engineers who make a substantial contribution to society. That’s not to say that the arts isn’t very important, just for me, the Creators are not more important or valuable than the engineers.
I would like to hear of moves to enable engineers to derive the true value of their invensions and be recognised for their contribution to all of our lives.

 

[profchris]

The two rights have different requirements because they give quite different benefits.

Copyright just exists when you record a work (writing, song, picture etc) - no need for registration, not even a need for a copyright notice, though these can give you advantages later. But all you get is the right to control copying and sharing the expression of your work. Anyone else can take the underlying idea and use it for themselves.

A patent gives you a complete monopoly over your invention, even against unauthorised users and against independent inventors. It's such a large right that you have to show you deserve it because you've come up with something truly new and inventive, thus the time and cost. BTW, employed inventors have a legal right to share in the profits their employer makes from the invention.

Working out how to give greater benefit to inventors is not a simple task. Some countries have "utility" patents for less inventive things, but this causes other complications because it restricts R&D by others.

There's no free lunch anywhere, and working out a "fair" system is complex. Just as an example, it's a scandal that musicians only get a tiny fraction of the income from streaming. Clearly all the fault of the streaming companies. Except that Spotify pays around 1/3 of income for the use of the music it streams, and the remainder only covers costs and makes it a small profit margin. That 1/3 goes to the music industry, who pay only a tiny fraction to the recording artists, because of the contracts they signed when the industry decided to invest in them, and the industry recoups its investment in artists who don't make it from those who do. The fair solution isn't obvious to anyone.

 

[porker]

I was spurred to this thread by listening this morning to the news about how unfair it is for the song creators with streaming.
It may be just me, but I find the laws surrounding copyright and patents to be really unfair. To register copyright, you just add the C logo and a bit of text and you are done. You get rights to the piece of work for life plus 70 years. That’s terrific.
Patents on the other hand require you to spend over £100K if you want one world wide and only last for 14 years for a design patent. Most engineers work for a company and part of their contract requires them to sign over all inventions to the company. If they work for themselves few can afford the patent in the first place or if granted can afford to defend the patent should it be copied. They derive absolutely no benefit from their contribution and invention.
To me, developing say the MRI scanner or the World Wide Web versus coming up with a popular tune is a no brainier. I would far rather value the engineers who make a substantial contribution to society. That’s not to say that the arts isn’t very important, just for me, the Creators are not more important or valuable than the engineers.
I would like to hear of moves to enable engineers to derive the true value of their invensions and be recognised for their contribution to all of our lives.

I understand what you say but there is also a flip side to the arguement. By holding patents, this can often stifle innovation and competition. It may be good for the individual or company but does it benefit everyone? The WWW was a great invention that has transformed everyones lives but if Tim Berners-Lee had patented it (I think practically this might have been difficult) then the whole thing would be in the hands of a large corporation who controlled it all instead of openly available to everyone. I have had some involvement in patents in my working life and am tainted by having to deal with some companies whose sole purpose is to try to claim damages from patents they have bought up.

 

[deema]

Interesting perspective, but a valid one. if I were to out your view I a slightly different context your say that because engineers make can make a huge impact on society that their work should be altruistic?
I don’t think the music industry is very caring and certainly is in it to make a Profit
Taking on board your very valid idea, wouldnt it be far fairer to make the protection and cost for both a patent and copyright the same?

 

[porker]

There is a problem with the costs - and by that I mean the cost to protect these. With a copyright it can be simple - you create something, it is yours and as long as you can prove that it is fairly straightforward. With the patent there is the whole issue of 'prior art' which takes a lot of research and in practical sense, it has to very clearly specified exactly what is being patented. IME this is where the lawyers get even richer during a dispute.
As @profchris explains it is much more involved to get a patent granted so there is more inherent cost. In my field (tech), an individual would probably try to get a deal with a larger company to take a good idea forward so they would not personally incur the costs involved.

 

[Spectric]

Patents on the other hand require you to spend over £100K if you want one world wide and only last for 14 years for a design patent. Most engineers work for a company and part of their contract requires them to sign over all inventions to the company.

Yes the patent belongs to the company for whom you work, but then they do pay your wages. I think having a limited patent time span is fair, it gives you the initial advantage of selling the product to recoup cost as well as profit and then it becomes open to the market by which time the product could be old hat or someone else takes it to the next level, ie technical inovation. Think of Festool products, when the Domino patent runs out maybe Makita or Bosch will produce a Domino that would cost at least half of the current price or take the concept to another level.

 

[Jameshow]

Patents are great until you send it to China for manufacturing or put it on Amazon and a basics version miraculously appears weeks later......

Cheers James

 

[thetyreman]

what about furniture design? I've been wondering for a while now how you'd go about somebody stopping somebody else from copying your own ideas, I'd imagine you'd have to pay a fee or something and register it? just curious, when you sell a piece and its somebody elses design or idea what are your rights with that?

 

[Rorschach]

Copyrights and Patents are all well and good but you need the money to defend them which can cripple small companies.

 

[deema]

what about furniture design? I've been wondering for a while now how you'd go about somebody stopping somebody else from copying your own ideas, I'd imagine you'd have to pay a fee or something and register it? just curious, when you sell a piece and its somebody elses design or idea what are your rights with that?

what you need is to register the design, it’s called design right. It’s different to either a Patent or Copyright. It basically covers the aesthetic
appearance of something.

 

[deema]

Think of Festool products, when the Domino patent runs out maybe Makita or Bosch will produce a Domino that would cost at least half of the current price or take the concept to another level.

I agree, there is a balance to be struck. A design patent is for 14 years from when it’s registered, which is normally before you start getting tooling etc made. It can take over a year or more perfect a design after its been registered. You then have to try and get it to market, it can take a number of years to build up any traction selling stuff, especially if it’s a global market.
I would argue that if 14 years is good enough for a patent, then 14 years is good enough for copyright. The value of someone’s ideas is no less important or valuable. It may be that the period should be a different timescale, but they should be the same.

 

[deema]

With the patent there is the whole issue of 'prior art' which takes a lot of research and in practical sense, it has to very clearly specified exactly what is being patented.

Well, yes and no. If I take music for example, there are only a very limited number of notes and add to that the limitations that there are only certain combinations of notes that actually can be used in combination. If we take all the music that has ever been created, it’s almost guaranteed that every ‘acceptable’ combination of notes has already been played and created by someone. There is Nothing therefore really innovative about putting a sequence of notes together that we feel is pleasing. In fact it’s something that is actually really easy to program, there are rules about what is pleasing and what combinations work. It wouldn’t take much effort to create a program to write every acceptable combination of notes and simply copyright it effectively ending the music industry for the next say 120 years.

To develop a MRI scanner, mobile phone, computer, lasers etc is real genius. The engineers are literally creating something that has never existed before. Yes engineers are laid to develop stuff, but they aren't paid to have that created sparkle that brings totally new technology to life. Not all engineers are created equal, rather like not all musicians become famous. Applying existing technology is what most engineers do, only a very small number are truly creative.

 

[Yojevol]

There is a halfway house. It's called Anti Copying in Design. For a modest annual membership fee you can register designs and get legal cover in the event of copying dispute.
Brian

 

[RobinBHM]

Did anybody mention copy

Fancy a brand new Land Wind

Fancy a coffee

 

[Mark Hancock]

Think of Festool products, when the Domino patent runs out maybe Makita or Bosch will produce a Domino that would cost at least half of the current price or take the concept to another level.

That is exactly what happened with the Tormek Wet Grinder and jigs. The patent ran out and everyone now makes them though I would question whether they go to another level. Just check out the present Record jigs for and compare them with the old Tormek ones - virtually identical

 

[thetyreman]

I've been composing music for over 20 years, it really isn't that simple deema, you should try writing some music, it's way more than just a sequence of numbers and patterns, especially if you get into songwriting which has a lyrical aspect. I doubt an engineer could write a requiem like faure' or mozart's last piece, it's just as valid in terms of genius, it's an unfair comparison. I think we need engineers though just as much as we need creative people, there should be no hierarchy of subjects.

 

[D_W]

You're implying that engineers are inventors and they are working alone in self interest to develop something that would be patented.

That's usually not the case. Engineers are usually working for a company who is paying them salary and benefits whether they develop something or not. The patent decision is on the company's side (it's just as easy to keep something under wraps if you don't think it's valuable or nobody else will make the same thing before you get around to it).

If you think about how the two things work, it's pretty sensible. You need a combination for corporations and individuals to be able to have rights to something substantial for some period of time (patent), but not the ability for every tom-dick-and-harry to claim that they copyrighted something before a corporation or individual invented said thing. The patent system creates a legal framework for that.

Patents also have limited lifetime because it's a detriment to society if every advancement is controlled by an individual and can only be made or licensed by them until their death or some period after.

 

[D_W]

That is exactly what happened with the Tormek Wet Grinder and jigs. The patent ran out and everyone now makes them though I would question whether they go to another level. Just check out the present Record jigs for and compare them with the old Tormek ones - virtually identical

Having had a repro and then the real supergrind, I wonder why anyone would copy them in the first place (I couldn't find a sensible use for the tormek unless going really slow once in a great while is OK - I gave both of mine away). But the idea certainly has value to tormek. At the same time, nobody making a copy has ever bothered to do one really well. The sheppach copies over here had substandard wheels that wore unevenly, the jet versions had terrible electrical parts (how can that be so easy to do that poorly? for a savings of what, $3 a machine?) and until recently even the tormek systems had a plated arbor that froze wheels to the shaft and gave you about a 50/50 chance of getting a wheel off without breaking it (BTDT). But that's a good example of the patent system giving someone a head start to create brand recognition. And an ideal type of machine to market to beginners and people stuck working somewhere that sparking isn't allowed.

FWIW, I can remove metal about twice as fast with a crystolon stone in an IM 313, but that's not going to appeal to most of the market.

 

[dannyr]

Beware -- I was involved in a few patents and eventually (as a manager of a small division of a largeish international group) decided to steer clear where poss and just protect process info by keeping it secret as long as poss.

An example - as one of the developers we were invited to join a 3-way patent application with a large and a small company - I decided to decline - we continued as the profitable subcontractor for making the product but the other 2 fought, it went to court -- neither made any long term profit (the lawyers did). As a PS - neither kept good records, but I did, so was sub-poena'd to copy all my records for the court, which I did and charged at our cost level -- when one of the lawyers heard what I'd charged he said 'whaaaat - twenty times that rate would have been too cheap'

 

[Mark Hancock]

Having had a repro and then the real supergrind, I wonder why anyone would copy them in the first place (I couldn't find a sensible use for the tormek unless going really slow once in a great while is OK - I gave both of mine away). But the idea certainly has value to tormek. At the same time, nobody making a copy has ever bothered to do one really well. The sheppach copies over here had substandard wheels that wore unevenly, the jet versions had terrible electrical parts (how can that be so easy to do that poorly? for a savings of what, $3 a machine?) and until recently even the tormek systems had a plated arbor that froze wheels to the shaft and gave you about a 50/50 chance of getting a wheel off without breaking it (BTDT). But that's a good example of the patent system giving someone a head start to create brand recognition. And an ideal type of machine to market to beginners and people stuck working somewhere that sparking isn't allowed.

FWIW, I can remove metal about twice as fast with a crystolon stone in an IM 313, but that's not going to appeal to most of the market.

You've obviously not used a T8