Can proces be Copyrighted ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: artofcolor
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 05:32:41 pm
content: Hello David, can Copyright be applied to a process? For example, taking a raw material, applying it to a product, to make 3rd product out of it. The process and application is our know how. Can something like this be Copyrighted?This process was developed and created by us. As i watched in your video, patent is not smart, but want to know if copyright will work for it?Anyone else has any information or thoughts on it?Thank you

author: katzohki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 05:55:00 pm
content: I think you can only patent technology. What are you trying to accomplish with a patent / copyright? Patent is not the only way to protect your intellectual property. If you've invented something truly unique, the best way to form your business might be to be the only experts in it!

author: gxti
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 05:57:14 pm
content: No, you cannot copyright a process, method, or design. If you write it down then the words are copyrighted but that just means nobody can reproduce those exact written words, not that they can't use the process. That's what patents are for.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 06:14:38 pm
content: Apple, Coca Cola, and thousands of other companies would disagree that "you cannot copyright a ... design". The United States government has been issuing explicit Design Patents since 1842. Here a couple of examples: The patent for the design of the Coca Cola bottle, and one of innumerable exhbits in Apples ongoing legal skirmishes with competitors on all sides...Now it could be argued (quite properly, IMHO) that not everything that is granted a patent is worthy of the distinction. We would all be better off if companies like Apple, et.al. expended their resources into actually designing and producing products vs. keeping thousands of (technologically nonproductive) attorneys on the payroll for their chronic legal battles.

author: jmoreland79
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 06:21:55 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on September 22, 2014, 06:14:38 pmThose are patent issues, not copyrights...

author: katzohki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 06:23:11 pm
content: I think gxti and I both meant that these issues are covered bypatentand notcopyright.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 06:34:22 pm
content: There are also trademarks, which is what I believe some packaged designs fall under.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 06:35:26 pm
content: Back several decades ago, when the concept of software as a valuable product was not fully comprehended by patent/copyright laws, one company managed to copyright their software by a very novel method. They took all the source code and bound it into a "book" and "published" it, and offered it for public sale for some enormous amount of money (millions of dollars/pounds, etc.). They kept the copy locked up in a London bookshop display case. So technically, they met all the requirements for copyright.These days, we have a growing number of categories and types of protection. We have, for example "trade dress" by which UPS can claim the color brown for their trucks, employee uniforms, etc. Only common sense prevents them from suing everyone on the planet for using cardboard boxes that are brown. My own employer had to spend thousands (millions?) of $$$ changing a logo, reprinting stickers on computers, etc. etc. because T-Mobile claims to own #EA0A8E magenta.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 09:04:18 pm
content: In the UK you can register a design which protects against a direct copy but change the corners or such and that is got around you can register a colour such as JCB yellow or Ford tractor blue which are very specific colours so you can still paint things yellow or blue but not those particular shades processes such as making steel or plastic or glue come under patents.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2014, 09:47:10 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on September 22, 2014, 06:14:38 pmCopyright != Patent ( != Trademark )Very different things.

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 10:59:35 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on September 22, 2014, 06:35:26 pmBlack #000000 or white #FFFFFF is owned by someone too?Black might be a problem too soonBlackest is the new black: Scientists develop a material so dark that you can't see it...QuoteBTW: That is why this market of those crappy phones is one big bullshit while they claims for reinvented wheelsI like my black BENQ-SiemensNo problem to make cheap worldwide Skype calls using gateway stationary number and this is what I need a small phone- to make a call.Let thosebig mobile operatorswho claims for nothing kill themself in courts...

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 11:58:53 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on September 22, 2014, 09:47:10 pmCopyright = legal protection for intellectual propertyPatent = legal protection for intellectual propertyTrademark = legal protection for intellectual propertyDifferent how exactly?Remember that there is probably more of the really valuable intellectual property protected as Trade Secret than by those legal (but public) methods.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 12:20:22 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on September 22, 2014, 06:14:38 pmCopyright and Patents are two entirely different things, although both are aspects of intellectual property law.Copyright is automatic, you don't have to apply for it, or state it (though most do as a matter of course e.g. (c)2014 Joe Bloggs).The author of any "work" gets automatic copyright over that work.Such "works" are usually books, articles, photos, video, music, drawings etc, but not processes and designs as I understand it. Patents are used for processes.e.g. you can't design a circuit and have it covered under copyright. That only applies to the "work", i.e. theexactschematic, or theexactPCB layout.Anyone is basically free to come along and copy your circuit, redraw it and lay out on a new board, and they have not copied your work.Although, as always, the person with the deepest pockets usually wins, because anyone can sue you at any time for any thing....

author: KD0CAC John
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 12:51:02 pm
content: Layers & money get around anything .The reason we need to " Kill all the layers

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 12:52:57 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 23, 2014, 12:20:22 pmYes. Thank you. That was my basic point. Whatever mode of "protection" or method of establishing that "protection", it comes down to who has the better lawyers and deeper pockets to pay for them.And things change from age to age. Back several decades ago, people like Edwin H. Armstrong and companies like RCA had a pretty strong lock on the reference designs for things like FM radio and color television transmission and reception. Certainly a hobbiest could breadboard whatever they want for themselves in their little workshop. But if you wanted to sell FM receivers or color TV sets, RCA would see that they got their share or you would be out of business. However you change the value of a component or configure the circuit implementation (pre-PC board days).

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 01:02:09 pm
content: Speaking of deep pockets. Who else but McDonalds would have the chutzpah to try to patent a ham sandwich.Quote

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 04:15:03 pm
content: They didn't patent a sandwich. They patented a method for semi-automating the making of one.McDonald's success lies in the fact that they are basically the Henry Ford of the food world.They have machines at most locations in the US that are automated assembly lines for beverages. When you place your drive through order, a worker places the correct size cup in holder attached to a belt feed. This moves the cup under an ice dispenser then soda machine where it's automatically filled with the correct beverage (data comes from the POS system) and moved off to the side where the next is filled, then the next, etc.These automation tools increase speed and reduce error in your order.Sent from my Smartphone

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 09:36:56 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on September 22, 2014, 06:14:38 pmQuote from: Richard Crowley on September 23, 2014, 11:58:53 amI think when Apple sued Samsung, they didn't sue for "copyright infringement", but rather for "patent infringement". Those are design patents. Copyright may apply to the looks of a product, but it's a grey area. (For example, if I manufacture and sell dolls of Final Fantasy characters, I'm infringing on Square ENIX's copyright of those characters. If I make a phone similar to the iPhone, I doubt I can infringe on Apple's copyright - only their patents.)In Europe, patents are granted after arduous review, and tend to hold up well after being granted. In the US, they are granted to anyone who can pay the fees, and nonsensical patents need to be struck down in court if someone tries to enforce them against you. (Patent trolling and patent wars often make use of the fact that few people and companies want to go to the trouble of doing so, and most are often happy to pay a settlement and royalty instead.)The purpose of a patent is dual. For one, it grants a limited-time monopoly on the process or technology to the inventor, thus incentivising invention and innovation. And also, on the longer term it functions as a public repository of industrial knowledge available to anyone, as a patent needs to contain comprehensive documentation of the invention.It is up to debate how the current patent system (esp. the US one) holds up in these two regards, but overall patents aren't from the devil.Copyright is for data (software, music, written word, pictures, 3d models), and patent is for manufacturing processes and technology. You do not "register" copyright, it is automatically yours by virtue of being the author / creator of something. You can of course obtain copyright by having the author sign it over to you for money (which is how software companies and publishers get it).Trademarks are distinguishing marks of a certain brand that receive added protection via registration. They tend to be very specific and recognizable shapes, images or words (names and neologisms).