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.
Rick, Typically IP is protected by patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. I say typically because there is common law IP but is very difficult to prove or enforce without the other protections. Additionally, IP has to tie back to some sort of benefit. This is typically financial in nature but can also be recognition. Last, just because I have an idea or create something, it doesn't necessarily mean it is my IP. For example, I often build things for my wife out of wood. None of those would be considered IP. On the other hand, if the device is something that I decide to sell, market, (receive benefit), I could file for a patent and be protected. That device would then be considered my intellectual property. Now, if you take my device and modify it slightly (different color, slight shape change, etc.), but otherwise leave the functionality or how it operates intact, you would be violating my patent.
To tie this back to your products....Do your products constitute IP that have protections? Perhaps. You can certainly file for a patent, but you would need to have prove that it is distinguishing and unique to get such a patent. That is why I can't patent a table and say that anyone that creates a flat top with four legs violates my patent. That being said, suppose your products are have a unique method of construction. If that were the case, you could make the argument for a patent and claim it as IP. That isn't to say that I can't make a competing product, provided I do not duplicate your patented construction technique. Similarly, if your product has a unique shape that distinguishes it (coke bottle, mickey mouse circles, etc.), it can also be offered protections. (see thread regarding Howler versus Ipac Ultimate. Andy is spot on there.)
Similarly, slight modification of a trademark can also constitute a violation. Again, I will use the Coca-Cola example in your article. If I were to create a unique cola and market it as Coka-Cola, with a similar appearance to the original, I would be violating their trademark. The argument would be that the look of my product is almost indistinguishable from the original.
In regards to the forum and IP, I would see more of an argument around trademarks, if anything. The one that comes to mind is "Vigolix". If I were to start selling cabs that are identical to this design, and marketed them as "The Vigolix", I could see an argument if Vigo also intended on selling the design and marketing the same. Of course, Vigo would have to prove that the name is recognized and associated with him. (see Q-Tips, Band-Aids, etc.). There is a catch to that one though. If people start producing "Vigolix" cabs in quantity and he does not put efforts forth to stop people from doing so, he forfeits all protections associated with the name.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: How much of any of this is our individual IP? (Read 11846 times)
