HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
 
Thread Tools
Old Feb 03, 2005, 05:11 PM
Ed Berris
Guest
n/a Posts
Lawyers are killing the kit business

I found this article on www.instapundit.com. It tells what lawyers are
doing that can hurt small model makers.

Don Stackhouse already found out first hand what the impact of these
"shakedown lawsuits) are all about but I thought you all might want to read
this. Here it is:


"Lawyers Lay Waste to Military Models Industry
by James Dunnigan
February 3, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history
buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But
that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original
equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per
kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities
(10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are
about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the
market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing
as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available
because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being
hit with royalty demands.

These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize
"intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are considered
the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some
intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands
are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small
companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this contention.
In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good
public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a
small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice
if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model companies
will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or
otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the
aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of
the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem,
and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of
the wholesale price of the kits)."

I guess model kit makers will have to rename their models to avoid these
bottom feeding lawyers.

Ed




RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 07:11 PM
Tom H. Nagel
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

Actually, Ed, and fellow flyers, it is not the evil lawyers doing this. It
is the evil bean counters and the corporate dilberts who seek to maximize
profit at any expense.

A certain linguistically challenged President is also currently
attacking lawyers accusing them (us) of junk lawsuits and causing a
malpractice insurance crisis. Wrong again. Same real bad guys, the bean
counters and the corporate bandits.
Tom H. Nagel
Columbus, OH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Berris" <eberris@earthlink.net>
To: <soaring@airage.com>; "Jack Cooper" <leg@leadingedgegliders.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business


> I found this article on www.instapundit.com. It tells what lawyers are
> doing that can hurt small model makers.
>
> Don Stackhouse already found out first hand what the impact of these
> "shakedown lawsuits) are all about but I thought you all might want to

read
> this. Here it is:
>
>
> "Lawyers Lay Waste to Military Models Industry
> by James Dunnigan
> February 3, 2005
> Discussion Board on this DLS topic
>
> For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history
> buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles.

But
> that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original
> equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40

per
> kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small

quantities
> (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are
> about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of

the
> market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing
> as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available
> because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being
> hit with royalty demands.
>
> These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should

maximize
> "intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are

considered
> the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some
> intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands
> are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small
> companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this

contention.
> In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good
> public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a
> small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even

notice
> if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model

companies
> will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or
> otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the
> aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many

of
> the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem,
> and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent

of
> the wholesale price of the kits)."
>
> I guess model kit makers will have to rename their models to avoid these
> bottom feeding lawyers.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"

and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that
subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with
MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
are generally NOT in text format
>



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 07:11 PM
John Erickson
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

Tom,

If this is the case, then you should let the evil accountants and executives
go to court without your profession. Unless you walk away from the lawsuit,
you are still a foot soldier in this war.

JE
--
Erickson Architects
John R. Erickson, AIA


> From: "Tom H. Nagel" <tomnagel@iwaynet.net>
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:30:44 -0500
> To: "Ed Berris" <eberris@earthlink.net>
> Cc: "RCSE" <soaring@airage.com>
> Subject: Re: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business
>
> Actually, Ed, and fellow flyers, it is not the evil lawyers doing this. It
> is the evil bean counters and the corporate dilberts who seek to maximize
> profit at any expense.


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 09:11 PM
Simon Van Leeuwen
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

I believe there is creedance in the following conversation I had
recently with a designer/modeler in another part of the world. He has
produced a beautiful EDF F-104 which should be here in a week or so.

It could very well be that endeavors like this outside of the USA fall
under different rules...but I doubt it as far as patent infringment is
concerned. Read on:

> ..., however I need
> to spend time with my patent attorney to see if Lockheed really can stop
> people making kits of it, as they claim to be able to. I don't think they
> can as their US design patent will have expired ages ago, the designation
> F104 was given to them by the airforce, thus it is public domain and cannot
> be trademarked, and the shape of the plane cannot be considered a work of
> art, therefore an artist's type copyright cannot be applied. About the only
> thing they have is the trademark on the word Starfighter in the field of
> model aircraft (yep, they took it out), which is why I've removed any
> reference to the word on my website (just need to change the video). Here's
> hoping!
>
> cheers,


> Regarding LM, someone just needs to stand up to them. People are ignorant
> of the laws relating to intellectual property protection. I was an R&D
> engineer in the automotive world for 7 years, so IP protection became
> second nature. There are only 2 ways of protecting the shape or form of
> something: if it's considered a work of art then an artist's copyright
> applies (Ferrari et al consider their cars to be works of art so they are
> covered here). If it's not a work of art it must be protected in USA by a
> design patent, in AUS by a design registration. These must be filed before
> disclosure, and may only be renewed once. That means that anything over 15
> years old or so is fair game to copy, and there's nothing LM can do about
> it. The names, however, may be trademarked. Starfighter certainly is,
> however, Lightning cannot be trademarked as it is a word used in everyday
> conversation. The aircraft designation, F104 for example, I think has been
> given by the USAF, which means it is not the property of LM and cannot be
> trademarked as disclosure has already been made. This is my view on it,
> next week I'll be spending time with the patent attorney we used at my old
> job to see what his view is. LM may still send a ceast and decist letter,
> but all you need to do is point out the laws and the fact that you know
> them and they may back down. I'm not sure what I'd do if they didn't. It
> would be possible to win, and I would assume to recover costs as it could
> be easily proven that LM knew the laws and knew they were wrong as a case
> like this is black and white. I just hope it never comes to it!
>
> cheers,


After the above communication, I happened to have dinner with one of our
GPS/DGPS product patent attorneys. He agreed, but with the caveat that
it would require some investigation...



Tom H. Nagel wrote:
> Actually, Ed, and fellow flyers, it is not the evil lawyers doing this. It
> is the evil bean counters and the corporate dilberts who seek to maximize
> profit at any expense.
>
> A certain linguistically challenged President is also currently
> attacking lawyers accusing them (us) of junk lawsuits and causing a
> malpractice insurance crisis. Wrong again. Same real bad guys, the bean
> counters and the corporate bandits.
> Tom H. Nagel
> Columbus, OH
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Berris" <eberris@earthlink.net>
> To: <soaring@airage.com>; "Jack Cooper" <leg@leadingedgegliders.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:47 PM
> Subject: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business
>
>
>
>>I found this article on www.instapundit.com. It tells what lawyers are
>>doing that can hurt small model makers.
>>
>>Don Stackhouse already found out first hand what the impact of these
>>"shakedown lawsuits) are all about but I thought you all might want to

>
> read
>
>>this. Here it is:
>>
>>
>>"Lawyers Lay Waste to Military Models Industry
>>by James Dunnigan
>>February 3, 2005
>>Discussion Board on this DLS topic
>>
>>For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history
>>buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles.

>
> But
>
>>that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original
>>equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40

>
> per
>
>>kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small

>
> quantities
>
>>(10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are
>>about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of

>
> the
>
>>market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing
>>as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available
>>because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being
>>hit with royalty demands.
>>
>>These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should

>
> maximize
>
>>"intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are

>
> considered
>
>>the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some
>>intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands
>>are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small
>>companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this

>
> contention.
>
>>In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good
>>public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a
>>small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even

>
> notice
>
>>if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model

>
> companies
>
>>will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or
>>otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the
>>aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many

>
> of
>
>>the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem,
>>and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent

>
> of
>
>>the wholesale price of the kits)."
>>
>>I guess model kit makers will have to rename their models to avoid these
>>bottom feeding lawyers.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"

>
> and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that
> subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with
> MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
> are generally NOT in text format
>
>
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
>


--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 09:11 PM
Paul Jacobson
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

Not sure if there are many countries that have radically different
rules - especially for countries which have negotiated "Free" Trade
Agreement's with the US. For instance the AUS/US FTA which took
effect recently incorporated changes to Australia copyright law which
"harmonizes" it with US law.
<http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html>

There is a interesting page I found on design patents
<http://www.barrigar.com/designusa89.html>, which basically says that
only the ornamental aspects can covered by the design patents and
thus protected for 14 years. The functional aspects of the design can
be protected by copyright registration and can therefore be protected
for much longer periods - up to 120 years from date of creation in
some cases
<http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm>.
I think it would be difficult to argue that much of an aircraft
design was purely ornamental.

cheers
Paul

At 5:22 PM -0800 3/2/05, Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
>
>It could very well be that endeavors like this outside of the USA
>fall under different rules...but I doubt it as far as patent
>infringment is concerned. Read on:


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 09:11 PM
Jeff Steifel
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

I tend to disagree Tom. It is the lawyers that go chasing some of these
cases. They claim you can get what is rightfully yours... Look how many
lawyers are sending clients to doctors that will certify permanent
injuries that certainly don't exist. There are so many knockdown
attorneys now. Now back to the other lowyers... (spelling no making a
point) They love to sniff a class action lawsuit... the ones where most
everyone gets nothing and they make a killing. I have been in quite a
few of these. Even though the company supposedly made hundreds off me
illegally I get a coupon for $$$ off of future services.... I was no
longer interested in doing business with the company so I never got paid
back for the lost money.. but the lowyers made out very well. For a TV
that was designed to fail.... and cost me $170 to repair each time...
all it needed was a heat sink but RCA refused to add it to the design
even after an engineer found that adding the heat sink would prevent the
overheating a prevent the failure... So 3 times I fixed it... what did I
get... a coupon for $50 off my next RCA TV... I'll never buy another RCA
again. They didn't even pay for the repairs... The lowyers got paid
millions. ATT .... that class action from my cell phone netted me a $20
coupon for future calls. After I dropped my service to ATT... Of course
the loss was greater to me... I don't understand class action lawsuits.
Apparently the companies really don't reimburse you for the full theft,
or damages... but the lowyers make out great....

No you guys deserve much of the bad feelings many of us harbor against
you. And no it isn't all of you... but quite truthfully its hard to tell
the good from the bad. Some of you do so much harm ... Its no wonder why
so many of our politicians start out as lawyers.... Power hungry... and
going to feed their pockets at the trough.

Flame shields on... This isn't meant as a personal attack Tom.

Tom H. Nagel wrote:

>Actually, Ed, and fellow flyers, it is not the evil lawyers doing this. It
>is the evil bean counters and the corporate dilberts who seek to maximize
>profit at any expense.
>
> A certain linguistically challenged President is also currently
>attacking lawyers accusing them (us) of junk lawsuits and causing a
>malpractice insurance crisis. Wrong again. Same real bad guys, the bean
>counters and the corporate bandits.
>Tom H. Nagel
>Columbus, OH
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ed Berris" <eberris@earthlink.net>
>To: <soaring@airage.com>; "Jack Cooper" <leg@leadingedgegliders.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:47 PM
>Subject: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business
>
>
>
>
>>I found this article on www.instapundit.com. It tells what lawyers are
>>doing that can hurt small model makers.
>>
>>Don Stackhouse already found out first hand what the impact of these
>>"shakedown lawsuits) are all about but I thought you all might want to
>>
>>

>read
>
>
>>this. Here it is:
>>
>>
>>"Lawyers Lay Waste to Military Models Industry
>>by James Dunnigan
>>February 3, 2005
>>Discussion Board on this DLS topic
>>
>>For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history
>>buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles.
>>
>>

>But
>
>
>>that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original
>>equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40
>>
>>

>per
>
>
>>kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small
>>
>>

>quantities
>
>
>>(10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are
>>about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of
>>
>>

>the
>
>
>>market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing
>>as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available
>>because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being
>>hit with royalty demands.
>>
>>These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should
>>
>>

>maximize
>
>
>>"intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are
>>
>>

>considered
>
>
>>the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some
>>intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands
>>are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small
>>companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this
>>
>>

>contention.
>
>
>>In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good
>>public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a
>>small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even
>>
>>

>notice
>
>
>>if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model
>>
>>

>companies
>
>
>>will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or
>>otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the
>>aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many
>>
>>

>of
>
>
>>the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem,
>>and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent
>>
>>

>of
>
>
>>the wholesale price of the kits)."
>>
>>I guess model kit makers will have to rename their models to avoid these
>>bottom feeding lawyers.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"
>>
>>

>and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that
>subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with
>MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
>are generally NOT in text format
>
>
>
>
>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
>
>
>
>
>


--
Jeff Steifel

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 03, 2005, 11:11 PM
Michael Neverdosky
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

Paul Jacobson wrote:
> <http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm>. I
> think it would be difficult to argue that much of an aircraft design was
> purely ornamental.


But MODELS are based purely on the ORNAMENTAL, that is the LOOKS of the
aircraft.

The models use almost NONE of the technology of the real planes.

michael
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 01:11 AM
Paul Jacobson
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

At 9:11 PM -0500 3/2/05, Michael Neverdosky wrote:
>
>But MODELS are based purely on the ORNAMENTAL, that is the LOOKS of
>the aircraft.
>
>The models use almost NONE of the technology of the real planes.


The point is they are copying a design that is not ornamental - the
looks of the plane are the result of it's functional design - and
copyright subsists in that design. While the model isn't an exact
replica it would be considered a derivative work so the model would
infringe copyright.

I'm simply suggesting that this is the kind of argument the original
manufacturers must be putting forward to justify claiming copyright
on Aircraft back to WWII. The designs in question fall within the
1923 to 1963 period for US works or 1923 to 1977 for other countries
so must have be originally copyrighted on the basis of functional
design rather than ornament and have had that copyright renewed in
order to be eligible for the 95 year copyright term.

Anyway the lawyers and patent attorneys are simply working within a
legal framework established by the us (and other) governments. The
extensions of copyright term are being driven by media corporations -
it's no coincidence that the copyright term is extended every time
Mickey Mouse is in "danger" of falling into the public domain! What
we are running into is collateral damage.

Obviously this is going to become a far greater problem for scale
modelers in the future. It also raises the question of what kind of
copyright applies designs published on the Internet for example.
Unless there is a specifc statement otherwise the standard published
works copyright applies, but what effect does that potentially have
on the status of those designs in the future?

cheers
Paul



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 01:11 AM
Doug McLaren
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:22:37PM -0800, Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:

| I believe there is creedance in the following conversation I had
| recently with a designer/modeler in another part of the world. He has
| produced a beautiful EDF F-104 which should be here in a week or so.
|
| It could very well be that endeavors like this outside of the USA fall
| under different rules...but I doubt it as far as patent infringment is
| concerned.

Any patents issued on the F-104 should have expired by now, since
they're supposed to last 17 years. Now, there are ways to keep
patents alive longer than that (by delaying their granting by
repeatedly amending them before they're granted), but this is the
exception rather than the norm. And even so, a model airplane
probably wouldn't use most of the technologies that the jet itself
used (except maybe if the shape were patented, or some new airfoil.)

Copyrights now last a very long time (now 90 years for anything owned
by a corporation, but the period was shorter in the past), but any
copyrights on plans made in WW1 should have expired by now, and the
same goes for WW2 though there's some room for them to still be valid,
as the rules change if something is published vs. not published ...

Trademarks are probably the sticker -- they don't expire. A company
can abandon them, but they don't expire. But trademarks are usually
applied to a phrase, or a logo -- things like that. Can you trademark
an entire plane? Lockheed seems to think so.

These three things are somewhat similar, and people get them confused
all the time. However, legally, they're very different with very
different rules applied to each one.

| >..., however I need to spend time with my patent attorney

And that's probably how any real attempt to fight this should start --
by talking to qualified legal counsel. (I'm certainly not a lawyer.)

| >Regarding LM, someone just needs to stand up to them. People are
| >ignorant of the laws relating to intellectual property protection.

.... but that won't stop them from speaking as if they were an
authority

In any event, if your attorney tells you what you want to hear, and
you have the finances to fight LM, I wish you the best of luck, and
hope you succeed.

I'm sure LM knows the laws relating to IP protection, but they
probably also know that they can bully most people around very easily.
It would be very nice to see them proven wrong ...

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
Jury - 12 people who determine which client has the better lawyer.
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 09:11 AM
MSu1049321@aol.com
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business



The only way to settle this is if some kit manufacturer (perhaps one created
just for this purpose) volunteers to become the test case and get sued by
Lockmart, or counter-sue them. If we all contributed a dollar or two to a legal
defense fund, we could keep it going for the several years it would take to work
thru the court system and get a final ruling that makes sense. Nothing less
is going to solve this. Consider this another aspect of the issue of finding
and retaining flying sites: for the long-term health and SURVIVAL of our hobby,
we need to fight this battle and win it. I'm on the fence as to whether or
not to involve the AMA in this. What do you guys think?

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 09:34 AM
dusty bible = dirty life
Majortomski's Avatar
Oklahoma City OK USA Where fakts still exist even if they are ignored
Joined Aug 2000
2,792 Posts
This is the first time I've chimed in on any of these threads.

A point also missing, much like the "F-104" designator came from the USAF, thus the taxpayers, thus public domain. Likewise, in most cases the very "intellectual" issue, the design and it shape, even if originally paid for out of corporate funds, was purchased by the US Government. The designer was paid for his design with tax Dollars too.

LM and the other manufacures should have to proove that they specifically retained certain rights to the designed payed for by the government.

Former Contracting officer
Tom
Majortomski is offline Find More Posts by Majortomski
Old Feb 04, 2005, 11:11 AM
Tim Bennett
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

I beg to differ. There is another potentially cheaper and quicker fix. The
issue is that the historic military aircraft that were developed with public
moneys are being claimed as the private property of Lockheed Martin and
other military contractors. The question of fact is the ownership of this
intellectual property. The American people paid for it and should own the
rights to what they paid for. Congress can, and should, fix this with the
stroke of a pen. Write to your congressmen and senators making this
argument. How can they possibly oppose it?

Meanwhile, leave Gordy and the rest of us alone.

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: <MSu1049321@aol.com>
To: <Soaring@airage.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business


>
>
> The only way to settle this is if some kit manufacturer (perhaps one
> created
> just for this purpose) volunteers to become the test case and get sued by
> Lockmart, or counter-sue them. If we all contributed a dollar or two to a
> legal
> defense fund, we could keep it going for the several years it would take
> to work
> thru the court system and get a final ruling that makes sense. Nothing
> less
> is going to solve this. Consider this another aspect of the issue of
> finding
> and retaining flying sites: for the long-term health and SURVIVAL of our
> hobby,
> we need to fight this battle and win it. I'm on the fence as to whether
> or
> not to involve the AMA in this. What do you guys think?
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"
> and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note
> that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format
> with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and
> AOL are generally NOT in text format



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 11:11 AM
Grampy
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

Tim Bennett wrote:

>The American people paid for it and should own the
>rights to what they paid for. Congress can, and should, fix this with the
>stroke of a pen. Write to your congressmen and senators making this
>argument. How can they possibly oppose it?
>
>

Are you kidding. Please remember who OWNS these congressmen and senators.

--
Grampy [Glenn Couch]
Owensboro, Ky
***
"People are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers, instead of their conscience, be their guide." Will Rogers 1879-1935

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 11:11 AM
Jeff Steifel
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: Lawyers are killing the kit business

I would like to agree but I am not sure I can. The following is mainly
copyright and not patent examples.
In the software business, if I go to a company and do work for them...
any work I do is owned by them. (supports your theory)
On the other hand, if the company outsources, and the work is done
offsite... it is left up to a legal doc as to who really owns the work.
If it is done on site (still outsourcing) it is the company's free and
clear.
If it is done offsite the source code can be the outsourcing company's,
but doesn't require the hiring company to license the runtime since they
paid for it.... So it gets a little gray.. The source can also be the
the customer's if agreed to in writing ahead of time...

Tim Bennett wrote:

>I beg to differ. There is another potentially cheaper and quicker fix. The
>issue is that the historic military aircraft that were developed with public
>moneys are being claimed as the private property of Lockheed Martin and
>other military contractors. The question of fact is the ownership of this
>intellectual property. The American people paid for it and should own the
>rights to what they paid for. Congress can, and should, fix this with the
>stroke of a pen. Write to your congressmen and senators making this
>argument. How can they possibly oppose it?
>
>Meanwhile, leave Gordy and the rest of us alone.
>
>Tim
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <MSu1049321@aol.com>
>To: <Soaring@airage.com>
>Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:48 AM
>Subject: Re: [RCSE] Lawyers are killing the kit business
>
>
>
>
>>The only way to settle this is if some kit manufacturer (perhaps one
>>created
>>just for this purpose) volunteers to become the test case and get sued by
>>Lockmart, or counter-sue them. If we all contributed a dollar or two to a
>>legal
>>defense fund, we could keep it going for the several years it would take
>>to work
>>thru the court system and get a final ruling that makes sense. Nothing
>>less
>>is going to solve this. Consider this another aspect of the issue of
>>finding
>>and retaining flying sites: for the long-term health and SURVIVAL of our
>>hobby,
>>we need to fight this battle and win it. I'm on the fence as to whether
>>or
>>not to involve the AMA in this. What do you guys think?
>>
>>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"
>>and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note
>>that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format
>>with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and
>>AOL are generally NOT in text format
>>
>>

>
>
>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
>
>
>
>
>


--
Jeff Steifel

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring-request@airage.com. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Old Feb 04, 2005, 11:40 AM
Registered User
Broomfield, CO
Joined Nov 2004
658 Posts
Why Leave Gordy and Tim alone?

Seemed like Gordy was "put out" since this wasn't all about sailplanes. Is he kidding? Tell all of the PowerSlopeSoarers (PSS) that they can no longer kit scale airplanes! Tell Gordy that he will soon pay an extra $1000 licensing fee for every Duo Discus or ASW Model! This is a very relevant thread to Glider Guiders and everyone that enjoys the FREEDOM of model building whether its sailplanes, helis, powered, boats, rocketry, cars, or static display models.
Pay attention, your freedom maybe in danger of being diminished!!!
Greg
fly1milehi is offline Find More Posts by fly1milehi
 


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big Aerospace Corps killing kit business!!!! dgliderguy Electric Plane Talk 1 Mar 02, 2005 03:01 PM
Ok, seperates and LIPOs are killing me! Flying Weasle Micro Helis 11 May 04, 2004 08:55 PM
Even canadians are killing to get oil Gman2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 3 Mar 25, 2002 02:13 AM