Re: [Paddlewise] Boat copies

I think a sea kayak hull copy:
- Is a flop moulded or splash moulded hull.
- Is a dimensionally similar shape, within building tolerances for the
construction material used.



There are an infinite number of boat shapes possible. I think we should be
hesitant in granting property rights over any of them, and only do so for
good reason.


JW: "When one scales a "boat" (and here you must understand that I am
tslking
about a boat not a part of a boat) one does not scale parts of it. You do,
however scale its principle dimensions such as  length, depth or beam or
even all three or two. Clever readers will recognise that scaling the length
will leave the sections unchanged, scaling the depth will leave the
waterlines unchanged and scaling the beam will leave the buttucks unchanged.
Scaling all three will change the size but not the form or its coefficients.
A scaled boat will reveal itself as a copy through application of the
various parameters I listed in a previous post."

Does scaling have a different meaning in vessels than in any other context?
If so in what way? Do you think that a boat scaled in any way is a copy? Or
only a boat scaled in the same direction in all dimensions? Earlier, you
reserved the option of saying that although a hull fitting your criteria
would be a copy, there may be hulls which you consider copies which are not
caught by those same criteria. That leaves me wondering whether there could
be a more complete definition of  "copy", or whether the listed criteria are
sufficient to identify all copies. The first two of your listed checks are
subjective: an experienced or inexperienced eye detects a copy. If we are to
leave subjectivity out, the objective checks need to be the decisive ones.


Showing that scaling has occurred is not of itself enough to identify a
copy. Imagine scaling the cross sections of a hull, down 20%, and the length
up 20%. It strains the usual idea of "copy" to accept that such a different
shape is a copy. The result is not a copy, although copying by scaling
occurs in the process. If scaling is to be used as a measure of copying of
the whole hull, then it should be combined with the limits which allow for
manufacturing tolerances, i.e. 1-2%. How do you cope with the situation when
some elements of a boat design and shown to be copies, and some are not? For
example, say the middle third of a boat hull shape proves to be a copy of
another boat, but the bow and stern are different. How do you decide how
much copying is unacceptable? Tell me how you do that objectively. Should a
partial copy be enough to give legal rights? I don't think it is possible to
decide on these questions of degree without knowing what purpose the answer
serves.

JW: "The concept of copies may appear subjective to you but as you may
recall I
provided objective methodology to establish the validity of a claim of
copying."
Outside of identical copies, do you think you can eliminate subjective
elements? When some objective criteria do not match, when do you decide to
say "copy", and when not?

Cheers, PT

PS:
MB: " I'm now going to take another wild guess that Peter is retired."
No such luck, still working away and dreaming of retiring and paddling more.
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************