[Stoves] To patent or not to patent. How about the 'un patent'

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Richard

 

Good example.

 

>…i make up my instructional manual and sell one , then proceed to expose the idea globally . 

One can then patent or in this case copywrite the manual …

 

You can’t patent the manual. Copyright exists in your name automatically without you having to do anything. It is a creative work (provided you didn’t plagiarise it). Patents are different.

 

>…but would it not, in parallel fashion, be an 'invalid copyright' meaning that they could not sue you. 

 

Someone else cannot copyright your works. Yes, ‘invalid’.

 

>I see the winning part as being able to continue to distribute the manuals and the market protection part as in the author's provision of personal support to the buyer. Since the product is (hopefully) likely to be adapted to local circumstance across national boundaries, it will likely move beyond anyone's prior art. 

 

Agreed. Other contributions welcome on this point. 

 

>I am therefore not sure if one can infringe on another's prior art (where does another's prior originate anyway?)

 

Well that is the difference between an invention and a creative work. A photo is not an invention.

 

>Thats a moot point in itself because in this case, the art we are speaking of is bound up more in the service of co developing a newer locally adapted version of the product, than the product per se. Maybe we need to hire a team of lawyers to define that for us -- then again, maybe not eh ?

 

You are offering to sell contractual services with a manual which is reasonable, and your reputation will last a lot longer than a patent.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151122/e962ecbd/attachment.html>