How much of any of this is our individual IP?

[Generic Eric]

To start, I think what is, and what isn't IP is clearly a different  subject than the right to be forgotten.

Semantics aside, can we come to an agreement of what is IP?

Can you identify a piece of IP that was generated by a user here?

[Le Chuck]

To start, I think what is, and what isn't IP is clearly a different  subject than the right to be forgotten.

Semantics aside, can we come to an agreement of what is IP?

Can you identify a piece of IP that was generated by a user here?

The interior of my micro yoke design would be IP wouldn't it?  The outside isn't original but the inner workings are.  What about my wireless triggerstick hot-swap.  First one of those IIRC.  Wouldn't the design of all those custom space shooter games that have been posted recently be IP?  What about the Space Base music by EDS1275?  What about all of Opt2Not's original art?  Should I continue?

[wp34]

Isn't IP just a word unless you protect your creation through a patent, copyright or trademark?

[Generic Eric]

To start, I think what is, and what isn't IP is clearly a different  subject than the right to be forgotten.

Semantics aside, can we come to an agreement of what is IP?

Can you identify a piece of IP that was generated by a user here?

The interior of my micro yoke design would be IP wouldn't it?  The outside isn't original but the inner workings are.  What about my wireless triggerstick hot-swap.  First one of those IIRC.  Wouldn't the design of all those custom space shooter games that have been posted recently be IP?  What about the Space Base music by EDS1275?  What about all of Opt2Not's original art?  Should I continue?

Forgive me, did you use a canoo?  An online vendors analog stick?  Mouser or digikey?
*shrug* maybe I guess.

If a person is on the apple vs samsung level you can afford to argue about the radius of corners and angles of bevels.  OTOH, since I've never seen an ICB or Pikes Peak in person,  how different is it?  Would it be a wholly different thing or more likely to fall under paradoy?  Could it share the same retail space?

If we can use Metropolis as an example, that is certainly derivitave of....Metropolis

How about this:  I had an idea to stylize a cabinet after Burgertime.  Big Kahuna Burger with Vincent & Jules dressed as Peter Pepper.  Maybe it's just silly & not a horrible idea.  But I couldn't call any of that *my* intellectual property.

Here is a more useful discussion:

Who has claim to any CNC bartop?

[Le Chuck]

Forgive me, did you use a canoo?  An online vendors analog stick?  Mouser or digikey?
*shrug* maybe I guess.

If a person is on the apple vs samsung level you can afford to argue about the radius of corners and angles of bevels.  OTOH, since I've never seen an ICB or Pikes Peak in person,  how different is it?  Would it be a wholly different thing or more likely to fall under paradoy?  Could it share the same retail space?

I built the yoke from off the shelf potentiometers that I hacked apart, redesigned internally, and a bunch of bits of wire and metal and I custom formed.  The whole build isn't my IP, infact the only part of that build I would consider my invention is the inner workings of that yoke. 

As for Space Base I didn't bring up the whole build, just the music.  The music is undisputed original work.  While Space Base is an exterior homage to ICB it is a total redesign from an electronics and software perspective.  The mechanics are half original and half not so that's a toss-up and the cab design is a straight copy more or less. 

[horizon]

In order to qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. To be original, the work:
Must have been independently created by the author rather than being copied from other work(s) and
Must have at least a minimal degree of creativity

Everything I've been reading essentially states that you must take some form of action to protect intellectual property.  And as far as IP goes, it needs to be done, essentially, by yourself, and independent of "just adding on to an existing idea".

Then I found this:

Intellectual property rights protect your right to use your original creation, but don't protect the idea itself. Often, claiming your rights requires giving your intellectual property physical form, which is what is legally protected. Lastly, some intellectual property rights last for a specific amount of time, while others can, in theory, last forever.

And this:

There are four basic types of intellectual property:

Trademarks-These are distinctive words, images or sounds that identify a brand. Trademarks can identify specific goods or services or may identify the company supplying them...

Patents-A patent gives you, the inventor, the exclusive right to make, use or sell an invention. You can stop others from doing anything with your invention until the patent expires, even if you never make or sell it. There are actually three different types of patent: utility, design and plant, each protecting different types of inventions...

Copyrights-...Copyrights cover writings, music, art and software, among other things. Some copyright rights are automatic as soon as you put the work into a tangible form (written, recorded, etc.), though it's advisable to include a copyright notice when publishing these works.

Trade secrets-...examples include the KFC Colonel's secret recipe and the Coca-Cola formula.

I did edit the above quote only in order to reduce the footprint of this post.  I do not believe I altered any definitions to suit my own personal stance.

My take away is, that unless you protect it, it doesn't mean anything.  And I still believe that sharing ideas, music, art, writings, software, and recipes in a free, public forum, doesn't make anything specifically IP.

[jennifer]

    I would be of the opinion that an idea, From conception to birth is documented here among the forums, along with a date stamp, These collective think-tank ideas are property of Saint.

[Vigo]

    I would be of the opinion that an idea, From conception to birth is documented here among the forums, along with a date stamp, These collective think-tank ideas are property of Saint.

I disagree, if Saint owned the rights, then he could technically build and sell my vigolix cab designs commercially without my permission. Not that he would do that, but that would also mean that I would not have the right to build and sell my own design without his permission.

As a user of instructables, i know copyright of projects on that site is a huge factor. The default protection of a project is that you are granting others to freely build your projects, but they need to credit back to you. They also cannot pursue any commercial endeavors on it without your permission.


Honestly, though, I think the copyright jazz is neither here nor there. We are talking about whether or not someone can remove their materials. I think that is a right, but shouldn't be automatically granted. A lot of my contributions are bigger than myself, an idea on top of someone's else's idea, with other ideas on top of them. I personally don't think I should just be able to remove a brick from that wall, because it is the foundation of something greater, and I am wrecking something that now that is part of the community.

At this moment, I am thinking that maybe there should be a lock on modifying posts over 180 days old, and the ability for a moderator to override or grant rights if the user has a compelling reason for it.

[jennifer]

     No most likely he would not do that, But to use it as a feature in an new book, attracting new members here to the forum whatever. He could lock that whole thing down with a wave of the hand. And then it is his.... And it should be that way because it is his site.

[Vigo]

I get that point. Saint doesn't feel that way, as he makes the analogy that he is the librarian here, and that is one of the reasons why I like it here. It is not self-serving at all. 

[Admiral688]

If you look at things from different perspectives, you'll get many answers on this topic.  I think once you post a project it's technically your IP from a design  perspective, however the projects tie in quite a bit of others intellectual property as well. I'd personally buy a diagram, plans, how to etc from some folks who's projects I personally would like to recreate just because I don't do cab building type of work on a regular basis and it would help out my skill building in the hobby.

Don't forget we can't get too upset about the topic....I'm sure we would all get trumped by IP claims from the companies whose products we copy and whose images we use for side art etc.

I would think it would be moot in the long run as I would think public posting would imply some type of fair use..

[TopJimmyCooks]

If you post it on line here it's reminiscent of open source.  For the good of all.  I have posted things here that I don't care if someone else uses or copies, and I have also sold some of the stuff I have made.  Not on a commercial scale.  If I had some hot invention or content I was planning to commercialize, i would not post it here first because I wouldn't expect it to be protected.  I haven't posted links to high res artwork i've made because 1 it's not that great, and 2 I don't want to see it on some commercial overseas site down the road. 

The 3d printer I use is sold for profit but all the parts are open source designs available on the web. 

[Rick]

Here is a more useful discussion:

Who has claim to any CNC bartop?

To put an answer to this one, specifically, I'll offer my point of view.

I have designed the sides of each of my bartop cabinets from scratch, to look similar to famous designs, yet with enough uniqueness to not get in trouble from any current rights holder. That being said, the design is my intellectual property, in as far as if I found that someone had traced my designs exactly, and was selling them, I would do what is necessary to protect my work through legal means.

I didn't outright copy any original ideas, nor do I claim IP on anything "commonplace", but I definitely have the right to protect my own design and associated works.

[horizon]

Here is a more useful discussion:

Who has claim to any CNC bartop?

To put an answer to this one, specifically, I'll offer my point of view.

I have designed the sides of each of my bartop cabinets from scratch, to look similar to famous designs, yet with enough uniqueness to not get in trouble from any current rights holder. That being said, the design is my intellectual property, in as far as if I found that someone had traced my designs exactly, and was selling them, I would do what is necessary to protect my work through legal means.

I didn't outright copy any original ideas, nor do I claim IP on anything "commonplace", but I definitely have the right to protect my own design and associated works.

And if someone can prove that you've essentially reproduced unoriginal work with slight aesthetic changes which may or may not be unique, you don't have IP - which is one of the points I made earlier in the thread - you couldn't go after them selling the design.  By your own admission, there is no copyright, trademark, or any other patent holding the idea(s) as your own, right? 

Of course, it's your right, and responsibility, as a business owner, IMO, to fight for your design.  So much grey area.

[Generic Eric]

Here is a more useful discussion:

Who has claim to any CNC bartop?

To put an answer to this one, specifically, I'll offer my point of view.

I have designed the sides of each of my bartop cabinets from scratch, to look similar to famous designs, yet with enough uniqueness to not get in trouble from any current rights holder. That being said, the design is my intellectual property, in as far as if I found that someone had traced my designs exactly, and was selling them, I would do what is necessary to protect my work through legal means.

I didn't outright copy any original ideas, nor do I claim IP on anything "commonplace", but I definitely have the right to protect my own design and associated works.

And if someone can prove that you've essentially reproduced unoriginal work with slight aesthetic changes which may or may not be unique, you don't have IP - which is one of the points I made earlier in the thread - you couldn't go after them selling the design.  By your own admission, there is no copyright, trademark, or any other patent holding the idea(s) as your own, right? 

I should have thanked you sooner Rick.  Would you consider that if 5, any number of people for that matter,  were trying to come up with an interesting shape of an arcade cabinet, all drawing from the same reference pool, where going to come up with something similar?  I think the larger the sample size, the more likely.  *shrug*

@Horizon
Thank you for wording that, so I didn't have to.

IANAL.  I think the whole apple samsung bezel deal was ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  The end user suffered the most.  Arguing about things gets in the way of doing things. ^{We should have colonized the moon, terraformed Mars, Have a generation ship exiting the solar system, but we won't because Capitalism.Thanks for reading}

I'm not a CNC dude, and I don't have much else to say about it at this point, it was an easy example to pull from.

[Rick]

And if someone can prove that you've essentially reproduced unoriginal work with slight aesthetic changes which may or may not be unique, you don't have IP - which is one of the points I made earlier in the thread - you couldn't go after them selling the design. By your own admission, there is no copyright, trademark, or any other patent holding the idea(s) as your own, right?

I'll have to disagree with you here.

Consider Coke, Pepsi, and any other cola out there. There are definite differences in taste, however each of their products share many of the exact same ingredients. You could not keep the exact ingredients in the exact measure and keep the exact same production process, or else you'd be infringing on their rights, however, if you modify them even slightly, you have a unique product, and you can now claim intellectual property rules.

Of course, it's your right, and responsibility, as a business owner, IMO, to fight for your design.  So much grey area.

This, I totally agree with. Grey areas abound! In North America, it's almost a sport to sue people, or even copy their idea and make money, and then use this money to fight the original product's owner. (I'm looking at YOU, Candy Crush Saga. Pre-Ninja Edit: I just read something about King buying the pre-cursor product to Candy Swipe, so this comment above may not be 100% accurate.)

I should have thanked you sooner Rick. Would you consider that if 5, any number of people for that matter, were trying to come up with an interesting shape of an arcade cabinet, all drawing from the same reference pool, where going to come up with something similar? I think the larger the sample size, the more likely.

True, and I'm certainly not saying that I'm going after anyone who's got a similar design - it would be impossible to do so, as I'd have to buy one of every cab that looked even remotely similar and do measurements and try and prove it.

I'm more talking about the three people who have already approached me for my cabs - outside of this forum, thankfully - with an eye on competing with me with my own designs. (I received word from a couple of CNC shops that I'm friendly with, that they were approached with a RFQ on mass producing bartop arcade cabinets - and then it 'magically' fell through because I couldn't produce them at the time. One of my friends at the shop was even able to get an admission out of one of them! Seems he was pretty pissed I wouldn't part with the plans when I couldn't sell him a cab, and outed himself. It was pretty surreal.)

That being said - you're right. People can - and will - copy great ideas until the cows come home, and I'm certainly not going to stop them from doing so.

[yotsuya]

I'm more talking about the three people who have already approached me for my cabs - outside of this forum, thankfully - with an eye on competing with me with my own designs. (I received word from a couple of CNC shops that I'm friendly with, that they were approached with a RFQ on mass producing bartop arcade cabinets - and then it 'magically' fell through because I couldn't produce them at the time. One of my friends at the shop was even able to get an admission out of one of them! Seems he was pretty pissed I wouldn't part with the plans when I couldn't sell him a cab, and outed himself. It was pretty surreal.)

[pbj]

That being said - you're right. People can - and will - copy great ideas until the cows come home, and I'm certainly not going to stop them from doing so.

 

Pot kettle black

[Rick]

Pot kettle black

I don't think that's how this reference is used.

[pbj]

If I understand correctly, you copied someone else's business idea but are butthurt that someone attempted to do it to you?

[Rick]

If I understand correctly, you copied someone else's business idea but are butthurt that someone attempted to do it to you?

Umm, no? I didn't steal anything. I'm not using other people's designs. I drew everything from scratch in Solidworks.

[pbj]

Is English your first language?

[Rick]

Is English your first language?

Yes.

[pbj]

Go figure. 

So who was trying to duplicate your cabinets?

[horizon]

And if someone can prove that you've essentially reproduced unoriginal work with slight aesthetic changes which may or may not be unique, you don't have IP - which is one of the points I made earlier in the thread - you couldn't go after them selling the design. By your own admission, there is no copyright, trademark, or any other patent holding the idea(s) as your own, right?

I'll have to disagree with you here.

Consider Coke, Pepsi, and any other cola out there. There are definite differences in taste, however each of their products share many of the exact same ingredients. You could not keep the exact ingredients in the exact measure and keep the exact same production process, or else you'd be infringing on their rights, however, if you modify them even slightly, you have a unique product, and you can now claim intellectual property rules.

So, actually trade secrets falls under IP, as pointed above with the KFC recipe.  Your example of Coke and Pepsi alone - they do make cola.  However, cola is not IP.  Their iteration of cola is (isn't RC the original or something?), and their recipes are vastly unique enough to be patented in one form or another even though they hold similar ingredients. The amounts of the like ingredients are different, as is the taste, color, and viscosity (potentially) of each of these products. 

This particular debate reminds me of vacuum cleaners.  Dyson did not make the first cyclone vacuum (fact check needed, just making a point), and possibly not Hoover, Dirt Devil, or Oreck.  But they do all make them.  Dyson, however, has a patent on HOW they achieve the cyclone suction, which cannot be reproduced without their consent.  The way they achieve cyclonic suction is their IP. '

Imagine the butt puckers if OND retroactively trademarked his designs and charged people 600 dollars each.  Whoops. 

 

[Ond]

Imagine the butt puckers if OND retroactively trademarked his designs and charged people 600 dollars each.  Whoops. 

Ahem.. downloads of Metropolis plans  approx ~2400 x $600 = $1,440,000.  You bitches owe me nearly $1.5 Mil!   .   No.  Not really.  Whilst I can appreciate the ins and outs of the hypothetical discussion going on here about what is and isn't 'IP' my view is, most of us are here to freely exchange ideas and knowledge, i.e. we all own it - well more or less.  IMO the success of the forum depends on some basic courtesy really, whilst the reuse of ideas is implied here, if people want to use an original design or idea for their own ends as a hobbyist, just ask the contributor for their OK.  Acknowledge them when you have used the idea and we are all good.  If we are talking commercial competition issues that's a whole different thing altogether, you either have protected IP or you don't.

This all stemmed from some recent mass post deletions yeah?  If that so called 'removal of IP' was deemed necessary by a member for a significant health reason, isn't that persons well being more important than some arcade machine build info?

[Generic Eric]

You can draw that conclusion.  But that was addressed.  I think we can still have an abstract discussion.  In fact the recent mention IP was in another thread.  I started a separate thread, because there are limited examples of IP held by members.  People  have been riffing off of each other here for a long time.

I don't think a person can lay claim to a shape. 

Also anyone that has made $ from bartops owes, at least recogniton to http://www.koenigs.dk/mame/eng/stepweecade.htm

*shrug*

[Ond]

Sure, and once you have some consensus on what is IP here, what then?

[Generic Eric]

Sure, and once you have some consensus on what is IP here, what then?

IP gets thrown around like love on Valentine's day.  Also, there was a gross error that "Anything posted here was property of Saint."

[Le Chuck]

isn't that persons well being more important than some arcade machine build info?

QFMFT!

[Generic Eric]

isn't that persons well being more important than some arcade machine build info?

QFMFT!

I'm out

We can't have an abstract discussion. I won't try to force it.

[Rick]

I don't think a person can lay claim to a shape.

Unfortunately, I believe that this is incorrect. Allow me to provide you with an example:



In fact, it's so common to claim ownership on a shape, that Disney and Deadmau5 are fighting over it.

Also anyone that has made $ from bartops owes, at least recogniton to http://www.koenigs.dk/mame/eng/stepweecade.htm

A tip of the hat and mad respect, for sure! It's probably one of the earliest - if not the first - example of a DIY bartop cabinet around.

[Le Chuck]

isn't that persons well being more important than some arcade machine build info?

QFMFT!

I'm out

We can't have an abstract discussion. I won't try to force it.

I'm feeling forced. 

[jennifer]

     OMG, the OND is here, .... "Deeming it necessary" to remove freeware in the advent of family distress is ridicules, Its not paying medical bills, Its a tribute to the original poster.... As for this C/W on shapes thing, That just goes to show how out of control this entitlement group have become, Whats next lines? curves? Colors? Letters?  Laugh if you will but that just how out of touch these people are.

[Nephasth]

     OMG, the OND is here, .... "Deeming it necessary" to remove freeware in the advent of family distress is ridicules, Its not paying medical bills, Its a tribute to the original poster.... As for this C/W on shapes thing, That just goes to show how out of control this entitlement group have become, Whats next lines? curves? Colors? Letters?  Laugh if you will but that just how out of touch these people are.

Dye companies hold patents on chemical formulas for their dyes.

[pbj]

In the thread - intellectual property thieves asserting ownership of their method of piracy

 

[Ond]

Really, I was just wondering what the purpose of this thread was.  Not that there has to be a purpose of course, but if there was one where was it heading?  So, abstractly then,  Items a, b and c are agreed (through forum consensus, including saint's approval) to be be a certain members IP.  What then?

I assert ownership over nothing, but what's yours is mine Jim  .

Jennifer,  I wouldn't presume to understand a members reasons for content deletion, my question about the priority of someone's health still stands (even though it's in the wrong thread). 

[Dawgz Rule]

Consider Coke, Pepsi, and any other cola out there. There are definite differences in taste, however each of their products share many of the exact same ingredients. You could not keep the exact ingredients in the exact measure and keep the exact same production process, or else you'd be infringing on their rights, however, if you modify them even slightly, you have a unique product, and you can now claim intellectual property rules.

Rick, this is 100% incorrect.  I recently took a position at a research institution and was required to take a mandatory course on IP, Copyrights, Patents, etc.  Slight modification of an existing product was specifically given as an example that does not constitute a new and unique product.  This is particularly true when a slight aesthetic change is made but the functionality is identical.  The product needs to be sufficiently different to be considered a unique product that can be offered protections. 

[jennifer]

    But... OND,  Credit where credit is due, Your build, ideas and designs are the cornerstone of this community.

[Rick]

Rick, this is 100% incorrect.  I recently took a position at a research institution and was required to take a mandatory course on IP, Copyrights, Patents, etc.  Slight modification of an existing product was specifically given as an example that does not constitute a new and unique product.  This is particularly true when a slight aesthetic change is made but the functionality is identical.  The product needs to be sufficiently different to be considered a unique product that can be offered protections.

I wouldn't say 100% incorrect - I've discussed this previously with a friend who has years of experience working in Trademark Law, and this is what I understand. Maybe this is only in Canada?

Also, if I'm correct in what I read in this article from this website, which is calling out IP law in Canada, it may help to flesh out this a bit better: http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/intellectual-property-law/understanding-intellectual-property-law/

I will say that we may be discussing Copyright or Trademark Law rather than IP Law.