Baron writes:
> Mechanical devices, in general, can easily be cloned or modified to get
> around copyright issues.

They don't need to be because they cannot be protected by copyright at
all.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

John Hasler wrote:

> Baron writes:
>> Mechanical devices, in general, can easily be cloned or modified to
>> get around copyright issues.
>
> They don't need to be because they cannot be protected by copyright at
> all.

Thankyou John. I wasn't aware of that.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

user@nouse.org writes:


>Can I release a low-tech mechanical invention under GPL?

>If I write some code or a document it's a straigt forward issue but
>what if it's a (real) device? I want to release it into public domain
>in a way that will also prevent anyone else from ever getting a patent
>on it. I don't want to apply for a patent just to be able to release
>it, especially since GPL is supposedly entirely autonomous.

GPL is a license which gains its force from copyright not patent law. Thus
if there is some aspect of the device which is copyrightable, then that
aspect could certainly be released under te GPL. To prevent anyone else
from getting a patent on it, just release it. It then becomes prior art
which anyone who attacks someone else's patent can then use. Ie, patent law
and copyright law are entirely different. Two people can copyright the
"same thing" if they can show they were independently created. Two people
cannot patent the same thing.

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:

>Baron writes:
>> Mechanical devices, in general, can easily be cloned or modified to get
>> around copyright issues.

>They don't need to be because they cannot be protected by copyright at
>all.

Aspects could be-- Look and feel.

Baron writes:
> Mechanical devices, in general, can easily be cloned or modified to get
> around copyright issues.

I wrote:
> They don't need to be because they cannot be protected by copyright at
> all.

Bill Unruh writes:
> Aspects could be-- Look and feel

Only to the extent that they can be identified separately from and are
capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the
article. If you decorate your steam engine with sculptures of cherubs you
can copyright the cherubs but if you don't patent the engine I can sell one
just like it absent the cherubs.

A design patent can provide somewhat broader protection but it too applies
only to the ornamental design. That would protect the fanciful curve of
the throttle handle but not the functional design of the governor.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:

>Baron writes:
>> Mechanical devices, in general, can easily be cloned or modified to get
>> around copyright issues.

>I wrote:
>> They don't need to be because they cannot be protected by copyright at
>> all.

>Bill Unruh writes:
>> Aspects could be-- Look and feel

>Only to the extent that they can be identified separately from and are
>capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the
>article. If you decorate your steam engine with sculptures of cherubs you
>can copyright the cherubs but if you don't patent the engine I can sell one
>just like it absent the cherubs.

I agree. But say a Henry Moore sculpture or a Calder mobile is protected by
copyright. That does not mean you cannot create a statue or a mobile
yourself, but you had better be able to argue that your creation was
independent of, and not derivative of theirs.

If the function can be separated from the design, then separating them is
easy. However in some cases the design and the function are more closely
tied together and copyright might protect more than fripperies.
In computer programs, the battle re VP Planner and Look and Feel was
precisely in how far copyright protected function and structure.


>A design patent can provide somewhat broader protection but it too applies
>only to the ornamental design. That would protect the fanciful curve of
>the throttle handle but not the functional design of the governor.

patents are far broader than copyright, and can protect much more, but can
also be much more limited (any prior art invalidates a patent but does not
invalidate a copyright.)

Unruh wrote:
> user@nouse.org writes:
>
>
>> Can I release a low-tech mechanical invention under GPL?
>
>> If I write some code or a document it's a straigt forward issue but
>> what if it's a (real) device? I want to release it into public domain
>> in a way that will also prevent anyone else from ever getting a patent
>> on it. I don't want to apply for a patent just to be able to release
>> it, especially since GPL is supposedly entirely autonomous.
>
> GPL is a license which gains its force from copyright not patent law. Thus
> if there is some aspect of the device which is copyrightable, then that
> aspect could certainly be released under te GPL. To prevent anyone else
> from getting a patent on it, just release it. It then becomes prior art
> which anyone who attacks someone else's patent can then use. Ie, patent law
> and copyright law are entirely different. Two people can copyright the
> "same thing" if they can show they were independently created. Two people
> cannot patent the same thing.
>

Thank you, everyone, I know copyright is not the same as patent but
was unaware that GPL was applicable strictly to copyrightable
material. I was even less aware that GPL rises from copyright law, I
thought it was entirely independant of it, like a natural 'default'
law of sorts. What I'm looking for then is an equivalent of GPL for
otherwise patentable innovation. I've already abandonned one owned
patent and the expense and red tape involed is exactly why I don't
want to go that route. It's no big deal, and that's another good
reason to just let it go public (from my point of view).

If I paint the thing lime green that could be construed as art but I'm
confused how that being prior art could ever prevent anyone from
getting a patent on the underlying technology. A provisional 1-year
patent can be obtained and abandonned I guess but I don't see how that
would empower me to release a patent I do not own, or why anyone
should have to pay anything to release something directly to public
domain.

user writes:
> I was even less aware that GPL rises from copyright law, I thought it was
> entirely independant of it, like a natural 'default' law of sorts.

The GPL is not a law of any sort. It is a model copyright license.

> What I'm looking for then is an equivalent of GPL for otherwise
> patentable innovation.

If you don't patent your invention you have nothing to apply such a license
to. A published but unpatented invention is in the public domain [1].

> If I paint the thing lime green that could be construed as art but I'm
> confused how that being prior art could ever prevent anyone from getting
> a patent on the underlying technology.

The term "prior art" has nothing to do with "art" in the aesthetic sense.
It means "prior technology".

> A provisional 1-year patent can be obtained and abandonned I guess but I
> don't see how that would empower me to release a patent I do not own...

The provisional patent establishes you as the inventor. That means no one
else can patent the invention. When it is published it goes into the
patent office database. That is the one place you can be fairly sure
patent examiners will always look and the one place that a court is just
about certain to accept as valid publication for the purpose of
establishing prior art.

> ...or why anyone should have to pay anything to release something
> directly to public domain.

You don't have to. Getting and abandoning a provisional patent is merely
one way of establishing published prior art.

What you need to do is publish your invention in a place where a) you can
convince a court that a diligent inventor would have seen it and b) where
the patent examiners will see it and so reject the attempts of others to
patent it.


[1] In the US the inventor has one year to apply for a patent on his
invention after he publishes it. This allows him to do such things as
publishing scientific papers discussing the principles behind it while he
is still working out the details of the invention.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Bill Unruh writes:
> If the function can be separated from the design, then separating them is
> easy. However in some cases the design and the function are more closely
> tied together and copyright might protect more than fripperies.

If ornamental design and function are not seperable copyright does not
apply. That is what design patents are for.

I wrote:
> A design patent can provide somewhat broader protection but it too
> applies only to the ornamental design. That would protect the fanciful
> curve of the throttle handle but not the functional design of the
> governor.

Bill Unruh writes:
> patents are far broader than copyright, and can protect much more, but
> can also be much more limited (any prior art invalidates a patent but
> does not invalidate a copyright.)

Design patents are different from utility patents (the usual kind). They
cover only the ornamental aspects of functional items and run for 14
years. The Coke bottle is the canonical example.


All of this is irrelevant to the OP's question, of course.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

user@nouse.org writes:

>Unruh wrote:
>> user@nouse.org writes:
>>
>>
>>> Can I release a low-tech mechanical invention under GPL?
>>
>>> If I write some code or a document it's a straigt forward issue but
>>> what if it's a (real) device? I want to release it into public domain
>>> in a way that will also prevent anyone else from ever getting a patent
>>> on it. I don't want to apply for a patent just to be able to release
>>> it, especially since GPL is supposedly entirely autonomous.
>>
>> GPL is a license which gains its force from copyright not patent law. Thus
>> if there is some aspect of the device which is copyrightable, then that
>> aspect could certainly be released under te GPL. To prevent anyone else
>> from getting a patent on it, just release it. It then becomes prior art
>> which anyone who attacks someone else's patent can then use. Ie, patent law
>> and copyright law are entirely different. Two people can copyright the
>> "same thing" if they can show they were independently created. Two people
>> cannot patent the same thing.
>>

>Thank you, everyone, I know copyright is not the same as patent but
>was unaware that GPL was applicable strictly to copyrightable
>material. I was even less aware that GPL rises from copyright law, I
>thought it was entirely independant of it, like a natural 'default'
>law of sorts. What I'm looking for then is an equivalent of GPL for
>otherwise patentable innovation. I've already abandonned one owned
>patent and the expense and red tape involed is exactly why I don't
>want to go that route. It's no big deal, and that's another good
>reason to just let it go public (from my point of view).

>If I paint the thing lime green that could be construed as art but I'm
>confused how that being prior art could ever prevent anyone from
>getting a patent on the underlying technology. A provisional 1-year
>patent can be obtained and abandonned I guess but I don't see how that
>would empower me to release a patent I do not own, or why anyone
>should have to pay anything to release something directly to public
>domain.



Patents are only issued for novel inventions/techniques/processes.. If it
is not novel a patent cannot be issued or if it is, that patent is invalid.
Ie, if all you want to do is to prevent someone else from patenting your
idea, just publish it in some common place that you can point to.
Even on the net probably-- put up a web page detailing the process. Make
sure that that web page stays up for many years. People can hardly say it
is hard to find-- just point them to google.

That "prior art" as it is known ( art in the sense of knowledge, artifice,
not interms of artisitic endeavour)--it is a technical term of patent law
and refers to prior "knowledge" of the community of that invention--
invalidates any subsequenct patent on
that same thing. Of course people can make changes and patent those
changes/improvements/.. but that patent will not cover the original
process, object,...

You are not "releasing the patent", you are releasing the idea, and that is
enough.