[TowerTalk] Tower Jack?

[Jim Lux]

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?