Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:39:40 -0700
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 6/14/13 8:08 PM, K8RI wrote:
On 6/14/2013 3:55 PM, Larry wrote:
Patents are renewable if I recall. I don't know if they changed when
they changed trademarks. Trademarks are good as long as the owner is
still alive and other rules (used to be 28 years and renewable once). I
have lost touch with the IP law stuff.

Too bad they changed the patent laws as I've been using the tower clamo
for nearly 30 years and figured any one who wanted to builfd one could.
  Actually a patent doesn't prevent you from building one for your self
to use.

sure enough, the law does prohibit building one for your own use (35 USC 271). there is an exception if you're doing research on the patented item (e.g. to improve it), but not for just plain old use.

The classic example is a hammer. If the claims are sufficiently broad (e.g. a device held in one or two hands, moved in a swinging motion to apply a force), you could make a hammer in order to compare it to your pneumatic hammer, but not to build a house (or, more interestingly, to form the metal for your new pneumatic hammer) You can build it to "compare" for research, but not to use.

The key is "use" (as opposed to "sell" which is also prohibited) { the actual wording is something like "made, used, sold, offered to sell or imported"

Keeping this all nice and ham radio related, a classic example is the Vibroplex bug. Lots of knockoffs, and Vibroplex went after the users (e.g. commercial telegraphers), as well as manufacturers.

ANd, sadly, there was a recent Supreme Court decision that casts the "research exemption" into doubt, after some 150+ years.

Madey vs Duke, 2002
" In short, regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business and is not solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense. Moreover, the profit or non-profit status of the user is not determinative. "


So you could probably built a towerjack (assuming the patent exists and is still valid) for the purposes of testing it (in the context of a bonafide experimental process) but not just for assembling/disassembling your tower. If you were to set up a "tower jacking" contest of some sort, perhaps that would fly?
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>