N4521U
Colonel
Don't forget T-shirt sales, coffee mugs, mouse pads and souvenir plates and spoons
Looks like I need a second in command!
P-51 - who currently owns rights?
- Thread starter wolfpack
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Looks like I need a second in command!
GregP
Major
Can I purchase the rights to transparent plastic? That way anyone wanting to look outside a modern cockpit would have to pay a royalty.
Oh, and those girls who dress up in clear plastic clothes? I'd OWN the rights to the first look!
Maybe it would be better to own the right s to toilet paper ... you'd have a captive client list, for sure.
Oh, and those girls who dress up in clear plastic clothes? I'd OWN the rights to the first look!
Maybe it would be better to own the right s to toilet paper ... you'd have a captive client list, for sure.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
Gladly, I'm not an IP lawyer. I think that trying to figure out the vagaries of IP law would make Satan weep.
As for license fees: I suspect that somebody with deep enough pockets could show that Northrop-Grumman can't control the use, even the commercial use, of the images of WW2-era Grumman aircraft. On the other hand, I'd rather not have to go to the court that NG choses, where it's likely that the judges were all vetted by NG lobbyists.
As for license fees: I suspect that somebody with deep enough pockets could show that Northrop-Grumman can't control the use, even the commercial use, of the images of WW2-era Grumman aircraft. On the other hand, I'd rather not have to go to the court that NG choses, where it's likely that the judges were all vetted by NG lobbyists.
GregP
Major
Often the legal battle is won by the side with deeper pockets. I know 3 - 4 people who lost just because of inability to keep up with the expense of fighting the battle.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
It's been a real serious problem for science journalists, especially in the UK. When it was published that one form of "medical" treatment paid for by the NHS was quackery, the quack's professional organization sued for libel. And won -- at the time, under English law, truth was not an adequate defense against libel. Apparently, there's also a clade of solicitors who will take on libel cases, on spec, because defending against libel is so expensive, most people will settle.
As for the deeper pockets winning? Happens all the time in US courts, especially with patent cases.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I recall many years ago, a guy who specialized in grabbing up expiring patents (he even grabbed Dr. Axelrod's Fish Atlas from underneath the author) discovered there was no actual patent on the Styrofoam ice chests that used to be so popular.
He swooped in, patented the design/concept, then went around and collected a fortune from infringement lawsuits. He pretty much killed off the styrofoam ice chest industry with that stunt.
He swooped in, patented the design/concept, then went around and collected a fortune from infringement lawsuits. He pretty much killed off the styrofoam ice chest industry with that stunt.
I predict these issues will become enormous in the next few years.
Rapid prototyping machines mean that for less than $1000 you can buy a machine that can print 3D objects. My company uses a $2000 3D printer to make models of the industrial machinery we sell. You can print a whistle with the ball inside. More expensive ones can print aircraft structural parts out of high grade certifiable aviation titanium. The RAF now prints spare parts of the Panavia Tornado. Recently Civilian German technology of the German company EOS was acquired by China and will advanced their aviation industry by a decade.
Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) is the process EOS uses. Currently available alloys used in the process include 17-4 and 15-5 stainless steel, maraging steel, cobalt chromium, inconel 625 and 718, and titanium Ti6Al4V. Theoretically, almost any alloy metal can be used in this process once fully developed and validated.
I predict this technology will greatly simplifying restoring an aircraft and will allow rebuilds of famous war birds.
Rapid prototyping machines mean that for less than $1000 you can buy a machine that can print 3D objects. My company uses a $2000 3D printer to make models of the industrial machinery we sell. You can print a whistle with the ball inside. More expensive ones can print aircraft structural parts out of high grade certifiable aviation titanium. The RAF now prints spare parts of the Panavia Tornado. Recently Civilian German technology of the German company EOS was acquired by China and will advanced their aviation industry by a decade.
Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) is the process EOS uses. Currently available alloys used in the process include 17-4 and 15-5 stainless steel, maraging steel, cobalt chromium, inconel 625 and 718, and titanium Ti6Al4V. Theoretically, almost any alloy metal can be used in this process once fully developed and validated.
I predict this technology will greatly simplifying restoring an aircraft and will allow rebuilds of famous war birds.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Folks, the way I see an angle around (at least in the US) this is when the FAA issues an airworthy certificate and calls the aircraft a "P-51," or "Mustang," or whatever, I'd tell anyone who has an issue to take it up with the FAA and then go pound sand until THEY could get the Feds to re-issue a new airworthiness certificate. Hire all the lawyers you want to deal with the FAA, utill such time the aircraft "is what it is" untill the FAA says differently. An airworthy certificate is a legal document under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14. Have a nice day!
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
That is known as falling from the esoteric 'theoretical' to the sewer of the 'practical' - and learn to love it.
You can't patent an already-existing design. Anyone who was manufacturing would have been able to claim (rightly) that they had come up with the design.
Those bins are pretty readily available around here.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You can patent anything that does not have an existing patent. Those common ice chests were made on a basic design (shape and capacity) and yet no one had a patent to them. This was his loophole.
Well, that makes your guys' law stupid.
NZ courts won't uphold any patent where it is proved that the manufacturer was producing prior to the patent being granted.
In fact a patent is defined as : "an exclusive right granted by the Government for a new invention." The key word here is new.
NZ courts won't uphold any patent where it is proved that the manufacturer was producing prior to the patent being granted.
In fact a patent is defined as : "an exclusive right granted by the Government for a new invention." The key word here is new.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Aparently, this guy hovered around the patent office, researching and looking for loopholes. This is how this guy made his fortune.
From what I recall (this happened in the 1980's), the styrofoam ice chest industry never had a set rule of dimensions, capacity and had simply evolved from the onset to become a common object in everyday life. There were several other things this guy latched onto, like the shape of a hosebib (out door water faucet) which again, is a design that evolved over the years and everyone took it for granted. If an onject is in general use, and does not or didn't have, a patent, that does not protect it from being patented. In the business world, there is not "gentleman's agreement". If you don't cover your a$$, someone will eventually hand it to you...
From what I recall (this happened in the 1980's), the styrofoam ice chest industry never had a set rule of dimensions, capacity and had simply evolved from the onset to become a common object in everyday life. There were several other things this guy latched onto, like the shape of a hosebib (out door water faucet) which again, is a design that evolved over the years and everyone took it for granted. If an onject is in general use, and does not or didn't have, a patent, that does not protect it from being patented. In the business world, there is not "gentleman's agreement". If you don't cover your a$$, someone will eventually hand it to you...
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
kind of like the way michael jackson snaged the copyrights to all the beatles songs away from sir paul....and the bad part about it it was paul who taught him how to do it. think he also got the CR for for the notre dame fight song and a crap load of others too..
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
You can't patent things which are common knowledge, which means that, for example, patenting the wheelbarrow would not be possible, nor would patenting the lever. The trouble is common knowledge requires patent examiners who are well-acquainted with the relevant technologies (this is why the Swiss patent office was hiring PhDs, like Einstein, as patent clerks
) This failed miserably, for many years, with software patents. I believe that bot h the Shell sort and Quick sort were patented, by random people, roughly thirty years after they were first published by somebody else (Shell and Quick are, iirc, the surnames of the computer scientists who developed them). Later, a particularly sleazy individual grabbed several hundred lines from GPL code and got a copyright issued and sued the developers. After way too much money was spent, the sleazebag was defeated. He should have been jailed, but, alas, his frauds weren't found criminal.IP of "P-51" is probably not Boeing's, as it was probably not North Americans: it's a designation assigned by the federal government. "Mustang," as applied to an aircraft may be, as the common names were, iirc, not assigned by the US government, but by either the manufacturer or, in some cases of WW2-era aircraft, by the British or Commonwealth. It's probable that "P-51 Mustang" can be trademarked, but it, like Kleenex and Xerox, may have been so diluted by common use that the value of the trademark is approaching nil. I don't even want to think about the rights for things like the aircraft's actual image.
Like I said earlier, I'm not an IP lawyer, nor would I want to be.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4677229/ns/business-autos/t/ford-cant-use-futura-new-sedan/#.U_5qhDKwJ0U
Interesting case along these lines.
Edited with correct, link.
Interesting case along these lines.
Edited with correct, link.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not sure how Pepboys pulled that off...Ford motor company has used Futura in the past on several lines: Lincoln in the 50's, Falcon series in the 60's and even had a Futura model in Australia that ran between the early 60's and 2008...
Typically, automobile companies are pretty smart with the registration of their trademarks. Even Ford couldn't get around a European car maker's registration of the name "Mustang", so when Ford sold them overseas in Europe during the 60's, they had to use the model/prototype code: T-5
Typically, automobile companies are pretty smart with the registration of their trademarks. Even Ford couldn't get around a European car maker's registration of the name "Mustang", so when Ford sold them overseas in Europe during the 60's, they had to use the model/prototype code: T-5
Mustang mayhem - MONEY - recordnet.com - Stockton, CA
I guess this is the fall-out from losing to PepBoys.
I guess this is the fall-out from losing to PepBoys.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It looks like whoever still owns Cavalier Aircraft's propietary notes, still owns the rights to the P-51 Mustang. NAA sold the rights to Cavalier Aircraft after the P-51 was being surplussed out of USAAF inventories.
Now as a twist of irony, since it is a matter of historical record that Ford named the T-5 after the aircraft, that whoever still holds the legal rights to the P-51, went after Ford for using the P-51's name without consent or royalties?
Now as a twist of irony, since it is a matter of historical record that Ford named the T-5 after the aircraft, that whoever still holds the legal rights to the P-51, went after Ford for using the P-51's name without consent or royalties?
