True, but . . .June 15 2017 at 12:36 PM
|Kurt Laughlin (Login Kurt-Laughlin)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
Response to Quality, Functionality and Utility can...
. . . you can't claim the rights to quality, fit, finish, or durability. You can only lay claim to an original idea ("novelty", in legal terms) and there are none here. The idea to use a tool to clamp and form metal or a die to bend it into a shape has been around for well over a century. It doesn't matter who came out with the first modeler's PE bending tool in the 80's or 90's because it wasn't their idea. So long as the follow-on product isn't an exact copy, the first producer has nothing.
The blather about "we'd sue but a lawyer costs too much" has been going on for years and it's been ******** from the start. The reality is that no IP lawyer would even pursue such a case because it has no chance in hell of ever succeeding. The effort needed to adapt a well-known and long-existing tool (a finger or box brake) for a new application (to bend .005 thick brass) is utterly irrelevant because effort isn't rewarded, novelty is.
| || |
- Images - Alasdair Johnston on Jun 15, 2017, 4:11 PM
- Here's what speaks for itself, in distilled form - Kurt Laughlin on Jun 15, 2017, 7:31 PM
- Not mine anymore: - Alasdair Johnston on Jun 15, 2017, 8:32 PM