[sdiy] cloning, copying, copyrights

Wed Jul 30 12:10:18 CEST 2008

Hi Harry

> Copyright (in the USA) only protects the physical expression of the
> design... ie it covers the actual drawing of the schematic and printed
> circuit board as if they were 'works of art'.
> 
> Only a Patent protects the idea.  
This is the anglosaxon approach of copy right. The roman-based copyright
  Is quite different.

There core is an "authors right" which protects the idea. It basically
says: noone is allowed to do anything with this idea, if the author
insists. This authors right is very similar to a basic human right(!),
as you are not allowed to harm the body of any person, you are not
allowed to harm the ideas and thoughts of a person. This right has not
to be claimed. It is related unsharable with the author. The author
cannot sell his idea (remember: it is a basic human right - like you
cannot sell your body in slavery)

Based on this there is a copyright and an exploitation right.

The copyright says: the author can decide, whether his idea may be
copied or not. A copy is from one person to another person. Singing a
song on a stage is a "copy" (from singer to many listeners).

The exploitation right says: the author can charge for the use of his
idea. "Use" includes copy or interpretation (until a certain degree).

Copyright and exploitation right can be shared with others (e.g.
editors, record companies,...), but can also been drawn back by the
author based on the authors right (but the author would have to refund
investiments done by the partner).

These three rights are only valid for ideas in the sens of which show a
certain level of creativity or individuality [*]. These three rights
NEVER can be applied to technical inventions!!!! So all discussion we do
about artwork of pcb are not valid for the roman based tradition of law
(means all lot of african countries, most south american countries,
european countries beside UK and Ireland).

For technical inventions there are:
- patent right (very similar to the US).
- competition regulations, including protection of utility pattern.

The basic principle here is similar to the publishing right, but without
the restriction of the authors right and without most restrictions of
copyright.
The intersting part is not(!) the patent, but the competition regulations:
You also can be accused (under private law), if someone can earn money
with some knowledge (his own knowledge or foreign knowledge he paid for)
and either you earn additional money with this knowledge (without taking
some from his earnings) or you act the way that he looses earnings,
though you do not have any financial advantage.

In the US only very appearent (most times optical) similarties are
matter of legal fact. But in Europe also similarities in function can be
of matter. Eg: The moog ladder with transistors assumingly would have
been protected also against imitations like diode based ladder filter.

Best regards, Florian

[*]there were interesting lawsuits regarding the level of creativity of
early techno tracks, which finally the authors could win.

If they do not have a patent, you could
> sell them. Best would be if you had one of their units that you legally
> acquired and could show that you had hand traced the sechmatic that YOU have
> from the actual unit, now you have 'reverse engineered' the unit and it is
> yours to do as you please (if no patents...).  
> 
> OTOH a big company could ruin you by throwing money to their lawyers which you
> could not match. They say "America has the best Justice system money can
> buy..."   :^P
> 
> Also watch out that you do not infringe a Trademark by calling it a R*land
> clone or whatever. Or that you do not copy 'signature' artistic features
> like size, color, position of knobs, etc...  That may get you in legal trouble
> (B*ringer lost a court battle with R*oland over that one... their clones were
> said to be intended to confuse the customer into buying the wrong product)
> 
> 
>>Abstracting from that, I understood that if you want to copy a
>>patented circuit for personal use you could do so at your own
>>discretion? Can you confirm or deny that?
> 
> 
> For the USA, correct. The disclosure of the patent is intended to
> educate those 'reasonably skilled in the art' and you can duplicate the
> circuit from the ideas presented.
> 
> Another item that has NOT been discussed is "Trade Secret" protection... where
> if you have their schematic it is because you illegally obtained it, and they
> have taken precautions to prevent you from getting it.  The fact that you have
> it makes you (prima facia) a thief...
> 
> For personal use, how would anyone KNOW you had  copied anything ???
> (unless you try to sell it commercially)
> 
> H^) harry
> 
> 
>  Which part of the US law or
> 
>>the German law would treat on this?
>>We're unfortunately stepping on weird ground, which changes from
>>country to country...
>>Is the EU regulating this? Does the EU say you can or can't copy
>>copyrighted circuits for personal use?
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Florian Anwander
>><Florian.Anwander at consol.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Cheater
>>>
>>>
>>>>even if the circuit is patented, a pcb that isn't stuffed is not that
>>>>circuit. It's merely a collection of conductors. So you're free to
>>>>sell it, and actually sell a whole kit, to other people.
>>>>Now whether people are free to put it together?
>>>>I might be wrong, because I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that any
>>>>patents still do allow personal use.
>>>
>>>Lets say: if you were a lawyer, how would you talk about analogue synths?
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>cloning a circuit for your own use if you own the original will not be
>>>accusable. But cloning a pcb which is patent pending and sell this pcb, is
>>>definitely liable to prosecution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, even if you're a wholesale entity, and you're making the pcb/kit,
>>>>that's perfectly legal... and as long as the person who buys the kit
>>>>isn't building it for profit, but for personal use, that's perfect.  I
>>>>think this even includes selling it on via ebay/craigslist once you're
>>>>bored with it (why shouldn't you be able to sell your own property?)
>>>
>>>NO that is definitley wrong. It is the person who sells the pcb who has the
>>>commercial profit (no matter whether there is a real profit or not). The
>>>word "sell" includes the word "profit"  ;-)
>>>
>>>And the patent is intended to assure its owner that he can participate all
>>>profits which are made with the content of his patent.
>>>
>>>Florian
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Synth-diy mailing list
>>Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>>http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Bissell & Nora Abdullah 4eva
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy

-- 
Florian Anwander                  |ConSol*
Tel.   +49(89)45841-133           |Consulting&Solutions Software GmbH
Fax    +49(89)45841-111           |Franziskanerstr. 38, D-81669 München
email: florian.anwander at consol.de |http://www.consol.de