|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Jack Murray Special user St. Petersburg Fl. 773 Posts |
The patent was "filed" in '92, but was not granted till '94. That is the timeline.
Jack Murray
http://www.dream-illusions.com |
|||||||||
MagicErik Loyal user Sneek, Netherlands 284 Posts |
Oh shoooooot you are right. That was also that 2 year gap where JLD was talking about....
It as indeed patented on march 29, 1994. And now I am wondering who will offer the first complete plans... EVI |
|||||||||
RVH Magic Special user 877 Posts |
Legally you can build any illusion yourself. (You can't protect magic: look at all the copy illusions around the world and there little you can do about it.) - But it's stealing and ethically we should know better...
|
|||||||||
Terry Holley Inner circle 1805 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-30 11:41, Timothy Drake wrote: Tim: I'll be copying every one of David Copperfield's exact illusions, routines and effects and I promise I won't whine if he does the same to me. I guess I'll just have to live with it. Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
|
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 12:51, el rafael wrote: Thanks for admitting that. Ethics are based in the LAW (it is NOT stealing). We do it all the time. Do you use store brands or generic drugs (same thing)?? You can't have it both ways. Public Domain = Not protected by the Law. (Yes it is that simple.) |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 12:51, el rafael wrote: Not true. You can protect magic you have developed - but if you're not conversant with intellectual property law then you need to get advice from someone who is. Rip off builders are able to do what they do because lots of magicians don't understand how to protect their ideas. Many stories involving rip offs actually originate with the fact that designers relied on so-called "rights" promoted by magic organisations. Sadly these things aren't worth much when you get out into the real world. What you actually need are patents, copyrights, trade marks, confidentiality law and contract law. (I think confidentiality is a UK term and the nearest equivalent in the USA is trade secrets law. I also think trademarks might be the UK equivalent of design patents in the USA - Perhaps any lawyers here can confirm.) If you've got a new idea which is really going to be worth money then it's advisable to invest in getting intellectual property specialists to ensure your real rights are protected - that's what successful innovators do in other businesses. Some people will complain that this involves cost but (like duh!) that's the way it is in the commercial world - if you've got faith in your ideas you'll take that punt. If you don't make sure you're protected then odds are if your ideas are any good then someone else will be using them soon enough. And complaining at that point is like failing to get car insurance and then complaining how out of pocket you are when you have an accident. |
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
[quote]On 2008-06-01 15:14, illusionman2 wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 12:51, el rafael wrote: Someone said because the secret was not published it was not public Domain. (Give me a break.) EVERYTHING is pubic Domain unless protected by law. |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-31 08:36, Banester wrote: Sounds like you're trying to put words into my mouth that were never there. I'd agree that design and development costs as well as production costs are all elements that go into determining the reasonable price of an illusion. And the inventor and builders certainly have every right to add a profit margin. Of course prices are also determined by market forces - In short, you can only sell products if you charge prices that someone is willing to pay. And it is up to sellers to decide if they want to try for high prices (and thus high profit margins) in the knowledge that will mean lower volumes, or if they want to try to make their money by selling higher volumes at lower margins. During the time that rights exist (c. 20 years for patents and lifetime + a few decades for copyrights) those choices are the sole perogative of the rights holders. However once the rights expire then others have the moral right to come into the market and make their own decisions about what prices they will try to charge. There will of course be trade-offs with quality (good props cost more to make). But buyers are of course, free to decide what quality they need and what price they can afford to pay. That's basic economics. It's how the world works. So to address your question about what is a reasonable mark-up, it isn't possible here to put a constant percentage figure on it. What is reasonable will be decided by the market and the people who comprise it. I've probably ruffled a few feathers here by challenging cherished ideas, but nowhere have I advocated buying the cheapest possible props. Everybody has the right to decide for themselves what they consider to be a reasonable quality prop. I'd agree that if copycat props are built so poorly you can't do a good act with them then the builders deserve to not get any trade. What I challenge though is the notion that anyone has a right to a permanent monopoly on a prop or routine. That is completely at odds with the general ethical consensus on intellectual property. Ideas simply cannot be owned forever - That would be a terrible moral wrong and it would undermine principles that have contributed to human evolution. Society has granted innovators rights to temporary monopolies in order to provide incentives for innovation. For 20 years after getting a patent you have the right to limit who can use your invention - and free from competition. You can charge higher margins on your product than if others were competing with you. It seems to me that 20 years worth of extra profit isn't bad (and it's many more decades if we're talking about something covered by copyright). But after those periods expire then the world in general has a right to try to get a fair price determined by the true market. [quote} Why not go down to Jesse James or Orange County Choppers and tell them that $100,000 is way too much for there unique motorcycle. Then take some pictures of their motorcycles and go to a different shop and pay $15,000 for a replica. That's basically what you are doing. [/quote] Nope, it's not what I'm saying. I don't know those firms, but if their motorcycles are truly unique they ought to be covered by trademarks and copyrights (and possibly patents if they involve technical innovation). But as long as someone isn't infringing genuine rights then I also see no reason why they shouldn't get a copy built at a lower price. There's nothing especially unique or innovative about a chopped Harley, mostly the differences come down to the quality of work. If a firm really puts $100,000 worth of value into its work then the product will cost that sort of money. If you can get someone to build a bike of that quality at $15,000 then either that builder is a fool who's going to make a huge loss and go bust quickly or the true value of that level of quality is $15,000. Quote:
that is a vital part of our civilisation Do you really think that an illusion is vital to our civilization? Come on. And what exactly are ethics enshrined in law? Here is the definition of a patent from the US Patent Office, please tell me where the ethics in it are. Maybe things are different in the UK? Quote:
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available. [/quote] No you misunderstood. It's not illusions that are a vital part of our civilisation, it's the principles of freedom from monopoly, freedom of trade and so on. It's these ethics which lead to the way that intellectual property laws are drafted. The ethical principle of freedom from monopoly leads to the idea that intellectual property rights should not be permanent but instead should last a finite time. This is the principle behind the part of your quoted text which says: "Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed..." |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
Quote:
There is a very strong argument that it is unethical for anyone to have permanent rights to a piece of "intellectual property" (be it copyright, patents or performance rights). If permanent means for all time forever, into the future, then I agree. However, Jim Steinmeyer is still alive, and he is also still selling Origami. My sense of right and wrong says to purchase it from him. He created it, and this is not a commodity, it's a show-business piece.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
markparker Veteran user Singapore 350 Posts |
Bottom line the patent may have run its time but does this give the right for any business in this small community of magic to then use that as an excuse for commercial profit?...It looks like someone has been laying waiting for this moment...Very quick to quote the legal rights to justify this blatant "its mine to do as I wish with attitude". It's very poor behaviour. It as usual comes down to ethics which very few seem to have these days...Personally I would deal with this my own way, It's a real shame these builders come and go and feed the cheap end of the market...Well done for nothing..You are ruining magic long term for short term bucks.
http://www.illusion-designer.com - Bespoke Illusion design - Publications -Show consultancy....Vivify a collection of stage illusions limited edition of 500 copies available now.
|
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 17:54, Bill Hallahan wrote: The laws of most countries agree that copyright lasts for the lifetime of the creator plus an additional term (several decades) during which his or her beneficiaries retain rights. So if Steinmeyer were claiming copyright on some aspect of origami or its presentation then I'd agree with you. (Although the discussion has tended to focus on patents it's not entirely inconceivable that there might be some copyright issues.) I would have thought trademark law would also offer magicians some protection (trademarks is certainly the UK term but possibly this has another name in the USA). All sorts of things are registered as trademarks (eg. Coke registered their "waisted" shaped bottle as a trademark) I would have thought magicians could register the fundamental appearance of certain props as trademarks. However it is very widely agreed that patents last only around 20 years. I support that. Twenty years is actually quite a long time for someone to enjoy monopoly rights to the exploitation of an idea. I guess my point is that the ethics of intellectual property has been heavily debated over a very long time and the generally agreed ethical principles have been encapsulated in the law on patents, copyright, trademarks, contracts, and confidentiality (which I believe is like trade secrets law in the USA). |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-02 05:18, markparker wrote: Well that's one of the least ethical (not to say more alarming) statements I've come across recently. Does ethics in magic mean lynch mob rule? |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-02 05:18, markparker wrote: I don't think he's saying it's his, he's saying it's public domain - like all ideas eventually it becomes open to humanity in general to see what they can do with it. The answer to your question is that the expiry of a patent gives the ethical right to new builders to enter the market and see if they can provide a prop at a more competitive price which is fairer to buyers. Quote:
its very poor behaviour. It as usual comes down to ethics which very few seem to have these days... Not so. Those arguing for the position enshrined in law are doing so for good ethical reasons. Quote:
...you are ruining magic long term for short term bucks. I think it is those who seek excessive restriction who are being foolish. If you look at the history of magic then you ought to see its evolution has been very much fueled by successive generations of magicians taking the ideas of their predecessors and developing them. If we follow the dictates of the restrictivists then it will ruin magic by causing it to stagnate. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Origami illusion now public domain??? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |