Re: [Paddlewise] Design copies

 John writes:
> The courts frequently face this problem. Sometimes what seems obvious to
> designers seems less obvious to the judge (or jury) who may have little or
> no background in design. A few buckets of body putty and one can easily
> disguise a hull to the untrained eye. This, of course, differs from a
> "splash" where a mold gets made over an unaltered boat.
John, when you say the courts frequently face this problem, do you know of
cases brought to enforce boat design rights? Or are you speaking more
generally of patent and other rights? I would be interested to read cases
related to boat designs.

>Mind you, building on the ideas of others differs considerably from simple
theft.
And building on earlier design ideas was exactly what happened with the
Nadgee, which as Matt noted, has different handling from the Mariner Max,
and is a different boat, developed by its maker, and in no way a simple copy
of the Max.

> The issue raises other possible problems. Consider this possibility.
> Builder Sleaze Boats copies your design (closely). A buyer using the
design
> drowns and the family sues both Sleaze Boats and you arguing that your
> design caused the problem. You argue that Sleaze stole your design. The
> plaintiff's lawyer says, "So you admit it is your design?  Yes, Sleaze
stole
> the design but he stole it in good faith. He used it because you said it
was
> a good boat. If you  had not promoted the boat so well he  would have used
> some one else's design. That he stole the design does not get you the
> designer off the hook for poor design work"
> (This is the same lawyer who won the judgement for the lady who spilled
> coffee in her lap)

Maybe in the USA, but in Australia, the example you give is quite beyond any
likely outcome in a court. There are so many contributing factors to a kayak
death or accident that it would be a brave plaintiff's lawyer who tried this
one. Boat designers should not lose sleep worrying about such far fetched
possibilities. Here, for example, is a case of sound judicial reasoning
rejecting an injury claim at a sports event:
http://www.ieabrokers.com.au/crowdcontroljuly2004.pdf Courts are not a
pushover for any claim to get through, and appeals courts fix up rubbish.
The Liebeck / McDonalds coffee spill case is so often used as an example of
a supposedly frivolous claim succeeding, that it would be as well for you to
look at the facts which persuaded the jury, say here:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-FALL2002/evening/sup_mat/coffee.html
Read that and see if you still suffer the same litigation paranoia.
Cheers, PT
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************