Infringement? I don't think so!
off topic from:
http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6335
Not wanting to hijack the very nice discussion about kits in general, moved this part here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T.Jackson
That clock is very good but grossly over priced. I kind of know of the designer, I actually worked on his wireless nurse call system in my previous job. Ironically, the built in clock on this system was quite possibly its only major fault. It kept time within +/- 10 mins a month. I was constantly called out to adjust these things. I have heard that early versions of the LED clock also kept time less than perfectly but the problem has since been rectified. All told - $180 is just way too much of an ask. No thanks. Oh! and I'll add that it took almost 2 years to develop !!! (This would possibly explain the price tag)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pic_User
How about....
We could decide upon a nifty PIC / electronics project that we want to do
together.
Say a clock very similar to Jaycar clock:
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=KC5404
Work together on the ideas to be incorporated into the project.
Collectively, write, test, debug the PBP code. Test till we have a working prototype.
Design the electronics, lay out the printed circuit board (PCB).
Get the boards etched, (prepaid (paypal) by members wanting one).
Buy the parts in bulk, (prepaid (paypal) by members wanting them).
Ship the “kits”, (prepaid (paypal) by members wanting them).
Get the kits in the mail.
Put the kits together, discuss problems, mods, ideas for changes in the PBP code.
This all may fall flat and we loose our invested money, but what if it did work, what’s the next kit?
This would be interesting even to the people not “buying the kit”, as a group effort.
Maybe, not the clock but something less costly to start.
-Adam-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T.Jackson
Hi Adam,
Jaycar Electronics actual own the copyright to that project. Certain they would pursue legal action if an inferior (copied / similar) product became available. Some may argue that a similar product with some unique character would fall under the Creative Comms act.
http://creativecommons.org/
I don't recommend doing a project like this and trying to sell it. The director of Jaycar is a very rich, powerful & highly persuasive man (From what I've heard). Not a good idea bud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
keithdoxey
There are already similar products in existance. The Broadcast Industry has used similar looking LED clocks for many years such as this one sold by Canford Audio
http://www.canford.co.uk/commerce/pr...oductid=58-782
The Broadcast clocks are generally slaved from a master time controller to ensure all displays are exactly the same but the general look of the Jaycar project isnt significantly different to those existing commercial products.
Reading the description of how the Jaycar kit animates the process of illuminating the next second LED would appear to be about the only unique aspect of their design.
Please note that I am not advocating that anyone should rip off someone elses design but pointing out the similar products can be developed by different people in different locations at the same time.
For many years TV stations have used graphics of clock with seconds appearing as the minute progresses.
Several years ago, Maplin published a design for an MSF controlled digital clock using a PIC and BiColour LED displays. If the MSF radio signal was absent the clock would keep time by its own crystal reference but the display would be red to indicate that it may not be totally accurate. When displaying the time received from the MSF radio signal the display was green.
Sorry, some may have read a lot more into this idea:
Please look at my post proposing making a clock “very similar to” an existing one.
Not, “buy one and reverse engineer it”.
Not, “copy it”.
Not even, “make one like it”. (I know we could do better)
That being said:
I would have no problem buying one and having a firm copy it in every detail, (except we consider that ripping the original’s effort).
A copyright to a “project” is just that a copyright, not a patent.
If it was patented:
Notice the post did not propose “selling the clock”.
I can only speak for my little corner of the globe:
Our patent laws have a provision that ANY patent idea can be copied for our own use, but not for sale.
If it was patented:
If we constructed the code and the device independently from even, looking at the device, and how it is made.
I would have no qualms, ringing the Jaycar Electronics' director’s doorbell offering to let him become our first customer.
Aside:
I was not suggesting selling the kit or the clock. You may have been mislead by the term “invested money”. That meant the money invested to get one PCB and one “set” of components plus postage. No one would be selling kits just paying for our share of the parts.
Oh, and the richer and the more powerful, the more fun!
-Adam-
1 Attachment(s)
Copyright, patent, and reverse engineering of electronic circuits
For anyone who is interested, here is a "micro course" on intellectual property as applied to electronics, prepared by the attorney who does my intellectual property work.
-------------
A copyright is a protection provided to an original work, published or not. Copyrights can extend to literature, plays, printed music, sound recordings, photographs, drawings, films, computer programs, etc. A copyright does not protect a fact, idea, procedure, concept, or method of operation. Another way to say it is that a copyright protects the particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The specific artwork for a printed circuit board can be copyrighted; so can the “artwork” of a particular schematic. However, there is nearly always more than one way to design a printed circuit board or draw a schematic for a given device, especially a simple one that is made up of common sub-circuits and circuit fragments that can be found in textbooks and product notes. Bottom line: Copyright of a schematic provides no protection for the circuit or circuits it shows. Drawing a new schematic of an existing device does not violate a copyright.
A patent is a property right issued to an inventor. It excludes others from making, using, duplicating, or selling the invention. Just an idea or suggestion for an invention cannot be patented; the complete, actual invention must be described. Electronic devices designed by assembling circuit designs and common circuit fragments from sources such as publications and manufacturers’ recommended implementations and application notes (these are things that fall under the catchall term “prior art”) cannot be patented if the combinations of those circuits and their resulting function are “obvious” to a person with “ordinary skill”—ordinary knowledge, creativity, and common sense, including professional education—in electronics. “Predictability” is important here: Can a person with an “ordinary” education in electronics “predict” how the device will work simply by looking at the schematic? If so, it probably cannot be patented.
A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device which identifies the source of a product to distinguish it from other products. (A servicemark does the same thing for a service.)
A trade secret is information about an idea or process that is held confidentially by the owner of that information. It remains a secret only as long as the owner can prevent the information from being disclosed. Once it has been revealed, it is no longer a trade secret. A device that can be purchased and “reverse engineered” (i.e., taken apart and a schematic drawn from the components and the circuit board) is not protected as a trade secret. Removing or painting over part numbers, or encasing entire assemblies in resin or plastic (called “potting”), or making enclosures difficult to open with ordinary tools all can be defeated.
------------
There you have it. Of course, other attorneys may have slightly different (or radically different) opinions. This is why lawyers' wives have mink coats!
I've attached the original document as a .pdf file for your convenience.
