If some people allow free copying of thier designs does that mean all boat designers should feel the same way? If changing the hatches or rigging on a deck constitutes a "new" design then would adding a hatch or rigging to an existing boat make it a new design and the person adding the hatch or rigging a boat designer? Some of the arguments I have read here sound very much like they come from people who either have never had an idea worth stealing or simply don't care and can't see why anyone else should care. When your livelyhood depends upon the application of your intellectual property you tend to care. To argue that you can simply design another boat puts the original thinker in the unenviable situation of having to stay ahead of the design thieves who can simply lie in wait for your next brainstorm and rip it off. Most small boat designers have the same problem - the cost of litigation and the unreliability of the court system (at least here in North America). The following web site might prove interesting to some. I had never seen law suits as game theory but it certainly looks clever. http://www.economics.laurentian.ca/Strategic_Think.27/Modules/Course_Schedul e.98/LAW/Nuisance%20Suits/nuisance_suits_more.htm Cheers John Winters *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
John adds that scaling should be considered in considering whether a hull shape is a copy. As we drift away from an identical shape, and the new shape has some parts scaled up or down, some aspects altered deliberately, and some new, the idea of a copy becomes subjective. The offended creator of the old boat will see similarities, the new boat maker will say the differences point to something now new. If I try and apply this to the case at hand, I have a grave concern the goalposts will keep on shifting. Here's some news that Matt will enjoy: the organisation which made the Svalbard kayak in the Netherlands ceased operations on 1st June 2003. 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
"From: John Winters: ROTFL" But SITD, 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:38 PDT