|
|
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
Even when good topics surface, those who dwell in the past get the thread deleted.
Several had good suggestions about protecting your rights as a manufacturer or an inventor, labelling gaffs, contracts, etc... As long as we promise to get along, let's try this again.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Charlie Justice Inner circle Mount Dora, Florida 1142 Posts |
Amen.
Too many threads have frayed into tangents of bitterness and hearsay. I would love to see this topic discussed with the main characters live and in person at some convention. Now THAT would be a forum worth watching. |
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
Who would be the referee?
In the mean time, what about discussing contractural agreements? Those who didn't get them in the past, sorry guys it's too late. FOR THE FUTURE, what should be included?
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Yeah, I was surprised to find my suggestions had gone with the wind. Likewise the support for some of those suggestions, and their suggestions too. Such perpetuates the problem.
If I'm up to typing later, may offer some suggestions again. It was good of James Riser to offer some comment and observations. Perhaps we might consider a rule about speaking for other people when posting?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
It's possible part of the thread will come back, but it's hard to keep continuity after certain comments are deleted.
I think speaking for other people is what got the thread removed in the first place. If it isn't written down somewhere, it should be.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
With all due respect, it's impossible to ponder the future without considering the past - at least with any likely success.
For example, any successful patent application will have to examine and describe "prior art"; that is, all the earlier versions of the present invention including items that may never have been patented or even produced for public consumption. To address theIP protection question directly, we can take Curtis Kam's simplified answer of "get it in writing" and leave it at that, or we can consider more in-depth ideas of how an inventor and a maker can determine and/or divide ownership of a specific work. However, the in-depth approach is almost guaranteed to produce some fireworks, especially from the camp of the guilty party. In fact, I think we can expect more pseudonym posters and proxy-messengers than ever before... so, let the games begin! Regards, Thomas Wayne
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-05-28 15:19, Thomas Wayne wrote: I agree, but we don't have to fall back into the "Gaff Wars" that has plagued this discussion before. Let's learn from the past; what to do differently, what not to do, and so forth. I'm not talking about patent law, just simply where do we go from here? FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, If inventor "A" has a rough draft of an idea, even a crude prototype, how does approach maker "B" Does he keep all manufacturing rights? Why? He couldn't do it himself or he wouldn't have enlisted maker B's help in the first place. What protects maker B's investment in tooling, innovations, improvements, etc... Can inventor A take the improved model to maker "C?" Sounds like a familiar story. If A,B, and C had done some work to protect each of their contributions we wouldn't have to talk in weird alphabetical code. It would be clear as day to all involved.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3498 Posts |
RE:
"To address the IP protection question directly, we can take Curtis Kam's simplified answer of "get it in writing" and leave it at that, or we can consider more in-depth ideas of how an inventor and a maker can determine and/or divide ownership of a specific work." Thomas, I guess I wasn't clear. The "ideas of how an inventor and a maker can determine and/or divide ownership of s specific work" was precisely what I suggested we "get in writing". I've found that once people agree get their thoughts in writing, they go to the next step, which is having those thoughts and reaching those agreements. I was hoping to stimulate just that discussion, and as a starter, I raised some of the initial issues. It would be extremely useful to be able to have the rest ofthat discussion, but frankly, I'm not going to waste my time if the thread's going to go the way that they have in the past. Keeping in mind the popular definition of insanity, (repeating the same actions but expecting different results) I have to wonder whether this is the thread where people will agree to discuss ideas academically, or whether we're heading for the same old mistakes? "With all due respect, it's impossible to ponder the future without considering the past - at least with any likely success." "In fact, I think we can expect more pseudonym posters and proxy-messengers than ever before... so, let the games begin!". I guess not. Have a good one.
Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery
|
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-05-28 15:54, Curtis Kam wrote: As an interested bystander, I have little to offer that directly pertains to this, but I'm sincerely hoping someone here can have that academic discussion.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
sullivanl Loyal user 277 Posts |
For magic gaffs, patents are out of the question because of a few key reasons; the difficulty in obtaining one for magic purposes, the very high cost of patents, and the weakness of international patent protection.
From what I learned while writing my senior thesis on international Intellectual Property development throughout the world (and in particular Asia), Curtis Kam’s advice is sound. That is, “getting it in writing” is currently the best approach to protect all parties involved. A good contract should clarify the duties of each party involved, the rights and permissions of each party, and also any other relevant material pertaining to the matter at hand. Once revised/signed by all sides, the development of the gaff/device should begin. Contracts are currently becoming more pervasive with international institutions and in joint ventures because international intellectual property protection is very weak. This is due to the lack of an overarching authority to enforce disputes. Like gaff wars in our magic community, similar disputes between countries occur, except with much more expensive merchandise. The same methods private corporations use to protect their business dealings can be used by magicians. When a dispute or perceived contract breech occurs, there is no need to go through local courts, which when dealing with IP, are notoriously slow and inefficient throughout the world. Both parties submit their complaint to an arbitration committee (either domestic or international), and agree to abide by the decision of this non-biased/non-governmental committee. This method is not only cheaper than using the courts, but also much quicker. Of course contracts work best between an inventor and manufacturer. There is no way to prevent another party from copying a device (the reason why should be clear). This is only the tip of the iceberg. If anymore would like more info or has questions, I would be happy to oblige. |
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
What would you consider to be a "fair" deal? I know, it depends on the people, but apparently past history has shown that few of them have really thought this through.
Feel free to add to the list. Maybe we can get some positive motion toward resolving these problems so they don't happen again. Or if they do, we at least have a "paper trail" to help pinpoint where the problem lies.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Can we have a calm discussion on the future of coin gaffs? (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |