idea "theft" in racing (1 Viewer)

[flapjack]

We all know that when someone comes up with a breakthrough, within a short period of time, ideas are copied. but how close are the designs? I was reading about the shop that makes projacks race stands, and this is what they said on their webpage (http://www.projackent.com/):

"The ProJack lifting system concept is Gary Marjama's patented intellectual property. However, there are some chassis builders who feel stealing another persons ideas are justifiable. ProJack Race Car Stands is the original and patented jack ..."

How often do racers pursue what they consider to be theft of ideas, or are they more likely to shrug it off?

 

[None]

We all know that when someone comes up with a breakthrough, within a short period of time, ideas are copied. but how close are the designs? I was reading about the shop that makes projacks race stands, and this is what they said on their webpage (http://www.projackent.com/):

"The ProJack lifting system concept is Gary Marjama's patented intellectual property. However, there are some chassis builders who feel stealing another persons ideas are justifiable. ProJack Race Car Stands is the original and patented jack ..."

How often do racers pursue what they consider to be theft of ideas, or are they more likely to shrug it off?

There is always when a small team comes up with something and the big red car cries to the NHRA and gets it banned.

 

[Jeff]

Patents don't last forever, current life is 20 years. Is the ProJack newer than that? I honestly don't recall.

My brother is in the golf business and their competitors knock of their designs the day after the patent expires. Patents of ideas that don't produce much in the way of profits are very hard to justify economically enforcing. Given the lack of patent data on his web site, I'm guessing that maybe there is a fair amount of marketing to his statements. People who have patents don't hide the patents numbers (prove me wrong here, I'd love to read the patent description/particulars).

You do know the difference between patent infringement and "theft of an idea" right? Only one is against the law.....

Got to wonder if the profits from projacks even justifies the maintenance fees.

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1h...ark-office/direct-lift-jack-with-low-profile/

As expected, the patent is circa 1993 .... he did manage to pay some maintenance fees, albeit late. Pretty easy to spot marketing (and in this case blatant lies).

 

[flapjack]

Interesting. i was just wondering out loud after I read that - I got lazy and didn't go digging.

 

[vonB]

If the patent is US5375814 I believe it has expired and is no longer anyone's intellectual property and likely shouldn't be referred to as if it is. The principle behind patents in fact promotes copying what the patent teaches after expiration. That now 20 years of market exclusivity is given in exchange for describing the invention in enough detail for a skilled person to be able to recreate it from the patent specification after the patents life as well as to provide notice to competitors during the patent's life on what to avoid or license. The limited exclusive monopoly time is to encourage and provide an incentive for ongoing new invention. To stay ahead of the game you have to continue being innovative and provide quality.

All knowledge is built on the things learned before, the line is drawn to prevent someone from unjustly capitalizing on the work of others. My personal ethic is you should never copy, but you should attempt to improve on the useful stuff that is in the public domain. The head start given to the practicing patent holder can be support for quality as they worked the bugs out when no one else could.

All problems in patents today are about reaping where one hasn't sown, whether its by infringing a valid patent or enforcing dubious and likely obvious invalid patents.

 

[Rajunz]

I have a buddy that built his own Projack stands for his racecar probably 19 years ago, right after he first saw one at the track. I'm sure that he wasn't the only racer to do so, for their own personal use.

 

[flapjack]

Well, there is this patent issue, but I was also wondering about the innovation with clutch systems, big valve heads, blower tweaks, etc... I guess teams don't mind it as they know other sharp people will figure it out and it would be costly to patent their innovations and enforce those patents

 

[vonB]

I have a buddy that built his own Projack stands for his racecar probably 19 years ago, right after he first saw one at the track. I'm sure that he wasn't the only racer to do so, for their own personal use.

Personal use or even awareness is not a factor in patent rights, it is infringement to make or use a patented item without the patent owners authorization. It's just usually not worth the bad publicity and high cost for a manufacturing company to sue end users.

 

[Jeff]

Tom, so if I figured out some clutch process that put 1/10th on the field and got a utility patent on it .... how much fun would the racing be, and how long before the rest of the field successfully requested the NHRA to outlaw my "unavailable to them" process (OK, it may take a while in the case of the "stock" Harley bikes). It's all about the hundreds of little things you try to do to stay a few steps ahead, knowing that where you are today will probably be non-competitive in less than a season. I think that's why we like it. IP attorneys and motorsports don't mix well (but there was a recent F-1 movie with that thread in the storyline that was fun to watch... Will Smith .... one word title....

My driver saved me .... Focus... entertaining (but doesn't hold a candle to DeadPool).

 

[flapjack]

Tom, so if I figured out some clutch process that put 1/10th on the field and got a utility patent on it .... how much fun would the racing be, and how long before the rest of the field successfully requested the NHRA to outlaw my "unavailable to them" process (OK, it may take a while in the case of the "stock" Harley bikes). It's all about the hundreds of little things you try to do to stay a few steps ahead, knowing that where you are today will probably be non-competitive in less than a season. I think that's why we like it. IP attorneys and motorsports don't mix well (but there was a recent F-1 movie with that thread in the storyline that was fun to watch... Will Smith .... one word title....

My driver saved me .... Focus... entertaining (but doesn't hold a candle to DeadPool).

I was thinking about the complains that would happen and how the NHRA would more or less be forced to step in, but I wanted to avoid bringing it up lest the bashing start.

 

[SoCal Racer]

In most cases prosecuting patent violations is too costly for small companies. The billion dollar companies can do it because they have an army of attorneys. I know a local ~$50M company that sued for a blatant patent violation by a former employee and won a million dollars plus forced the violator to stop using their technology; but the time and cost was hardly worth the award.

 

[FEDowner]

You should Copyright your design not patent it. Too much info has to be shared in the patent. Copyrights last a lot longer.
I also think if you make one for yourself it doesn't violate the patent.

 

[vonB]

You should Copyright your design not patent it. Too much info has to be shared in the patent. Copyrights last a lot longer.
I also think if you make one for yourself it doesn't violate the patent.

Functional, mechanical parts and devices are protected by patent. Copyrights do not apply to useful items*, copyright might (not clearly established) apply to the drawings or CAD files but definitely not to the object or the functional concept.
In the United States personal use is not an exception to patent infringement.

*boat hulls have a unique exception