PDA

View Full Version : protecting patents



duncan macgregor
03-03-2005, 06:06 PM
I once had in the distant past an austin A60 car and was surprised to find that the japanese copied the motor exactly, and produced a duplicate engine. I now find on sale at the moment a brand new beach buggy fitted with an exact replica of a honda 250 cc motor and gearbox, cheaper than honda sell the motor and gearbox. It looks like dog eat dog patents are worth nothing, research only assists the opposition. I asked a mechanic friend if this motor is any good and he assures me that it is, and not only that, but is selling really well. If anything goes wrong, stick honda parts on and away you go. The implications of this for FPA and WDT to name a couple, will put them on the skids. Patents in nz dont appear to be enforced, with people making copies, and selling at half price, with little or no developement input or research. macdunk

whiteheron
03-03-2005, 07:11 PM
macdunk

My first car was an Austin A30 and a good little car it was too
Your A60 was the biggest of the series I believe ; mine was the smallest

But that was a LONG time ago

Lawso
03-03-2005, 08:16 PM
quote: My first car was an Austin A30 and a good little car it was too
Me too. But I remember I had to change gear to get up the railway overbridge on Colombo St, Sydenham!!

03-03-2005, 09:47 PM
Duncan Datsun bought the rights and patents to the earlier A40 motor. The A40, A50, A55 and A60 motor all looked similar and some parts interchanged the main differences were in the bore & stroke. Datsun merged with nissan and later the Datsun name was dropped. A30, A35 And later A40 motors were smaller used in Austins with a Zenith carburettor and in Morrises with an S U carburettor so no patents were copied. The Morris Oxfords series 3 & 4 were made in India for many years after they were superseded in Britain. The company again buying the manufacturing rights from BMC as it was then known.

duncan macgregor
04-03-2005, 07:40 AM
Thanks ENIGMA i didnt know they bought the rights. This honda duplicate is made in china and has no names on it anywhere that i could see. Hardly think they would have paid for rights without sticking a name on it. Someone might let us know what is going on it looks like the thin end of a wedge to me. macdunk

Placebo
04-03-2005, 09:30 AM
Duncan they seem to be missing the point you are trying to make.

I am not a patent attorney but New Zealand has intellectual property laws that protect patents. Usually a patent is granted for 20 years. However, it is up to the product innovator to apply for a patent and if you do not do so it is my understanding that your product is fair game for the copycats. So the first question would be, did your Honda motor have a patent. Second question is, when did it expire. They are not granted indefinitely, although you can request an extension on various grounds (these usually known as process patents, and cover a range of minor grounds).

The WTO has addressed intellectual property rights in its Doha agreement (known as TRIPS), and all countries that have signed up must respect the agreement. I understand China has recently joined the WTO, so is now implicitly a signatory to the Doha agreement.

With respect to FPA, the reality for many manufacturers is that they are not truly innovative in themselves, but rely on a number of products that have been developed independently and incorporating them into their machinery. In this sense manufacturers simply market a product made up of components they neither develop nor make. So a large product may include a number of smaller products all with their own individual patents. The question is, how truly innovative is FPA? Or is your question better addressed to companies such as Scott Technology, Blis or Mooring Systems, who have innovated and developed their own technologies.

So to answer your question, if you develop a new product, apply for a patent. Then if a cheap knock-off emerges and you still have a valid patent, you have grounds to sue.

nottiger
04-03-2005, 08:43 PM
quote:Originally posted by Placebo

Duncan they seem to be missing the point you are trying to make.

..... if you develop a new product, apply for a patent. Then if a cheap knock-off emerges and you still have a valid patent, you have grounds to sue.


Actually you can do a provisional patent for 50$ +GST - main thing in a provisional is be ridiculously verbose and cover every angle no matter how silly it seems
....then finish with Aspects of this present invention have been described by way of example only and it should be appreciated that modifications and additions may be made without departing from the scope thereof.

Winston001
04-03-2005, 10:16 PM
Being able to sue is only of comfort where the rule of law is respected and upheld. Look at the drug dealers in Columbia for an example of where the rule of law in a nation state was over-run by the criminals.

I think Macs point is that innovators are at great risk of being copied - and not being able to do a lot about it. If you can get the civil authorities ie. police interested, then whole warehouse loads of ripoffs can be seized and destroyed. And it does happen in Asian countries with great fanfare from time to time.

But the game simply carries on. Copying is a real problem for industry.

I was talking to a pharmaceutical scientist today who was very bearish about all of the major drug companies. There aren't many if any wonder drugs in the pipeline. And what they do produce is being copied by cheap labs. Patents are running out. A glamour industry to stay away from for the short-term.

rotsevni
06-03-2005, 11:08 AM
Patents work best for companies with the financial clout to enforce them and the reputation of doing so vigorously. Sueing the infringer is only one of a number of options. Tie-ing the distributors of infringing product up in legal knots is one of these.

For start-ups, secrecy is by far the best option. Works best for products where the design or manufacturing process is not easily reverse-engineered.

Smart companies patent what could otherwise be easily copied and keep secret what could not.

Nottiger, your provisional patents will need to be filed into final applications long before anyone is likely to copy. The claims in the final application will have little chance of being granted unless they are not novel and fairly precise.

One of the best things about patents is how poorly they are understood. They do have deterent value sometimes greater than they deserve (many patents are not as strong as they may appear).

Placebo
07-03-2005, 11:30 AM
..then of course there are the arguments that patents discourage innovation (because they give the innovator a 20-year or whatever duration monopoly).