3955 group website steals article from amfone.net

[WQ9E]

Another area that some of us may not be aware of...

It's also a violation to use another author's article as a "close" guide to write your own worded version without listing it as a source, etc. Years ago I wasn't aware of this.

T

Thom,

That is a really "sticky" area in academe.  Somewhere around 10 or 15 years ago there were a couple of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about some professors getting in tenure trouble because they published research pieces with a similar "look and feel" to those published by others.  I recall one example could clearly be called a close copy but the second was tangentially related at best (different academic field, research design, etc.) but in both cases the authors were in serious trouble.

I am fortunate to be in the business area where content is far more important than style since style seems to be critical in some fields and it is easier to end up with a style similar to research already published.

If stealing a physical product was as easy as stealing IP then there wouldn't be a retail store left in business.  I appreciate Gary taking the high road with this site.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

And sometimes it really is an oversight or mistake. I recall this happening here with some of your transformer catalogs, Pat. Another member had apparently saved them at some point, then later sent them to Gary for placement on 'fone.

That happens all the time. People will submit items to be stored on the site for all to see and I have to assume the material being submitted is legally theirs. If not we have issues.

Which I see no problem with since you don't have the time to run multiple searches on every entry to check it. The main thing is being willing to deal with an issue immediately when it comes up, which you did in a professional, polite way. That's the big difference. Has something to do with 'intent'.

Then again, I recall the issues surrounding stuff lifted off the AMWindow some years back and Steve requesting the same site credit, nothing more. The individual involved was willing to credit him with one but not another since it was someone else's modification (which Steve had done the schematic and such for) and claimed he hadn't lifted it. When Steve pointed out the embedded html tags in the code, there wasn't any further excuse or reason for argument.

So it seems as much an issue of character as anything else. Upstanding individuals will do the right thing, those seeking attention while trying to build their legend off the backs of others won't, unless pressed to.

looking back at that, I now find it hard to believe I was even upset about it (That was before I even knew what this site was really about. Now it could copy most anything and I would not care). I had forgotten about it. They were scans of catalogs, I didn't even write them. Well it does happen, I have removed items from my site from time to time that were sent to me by one person and another later complained.

Yep, transformer catalogs. I don't remember you getting upset about it at all Pat, simply pointing out that you had put a lot of time into scanning them and would appreciate your site being credited, which Gary promptly did. You also offered access to a lot of other great stuff you had put up, stuff of great interest to the builders here.

That's the way it should work, mutual respect and sharing the info. To paraphrase Chris 'JBL, we're not building the #$%@! space shuttle here. It's a hobby. 

[k4kyv]

This is regarding patents, a slightly different issue than copyrights. Contrary to popular belief, receiving a valid patent does not automatically confer the right to manufacture the patented item. It is still subject to prior patents. The only thing a valid patent offers is protection against someone else manufacturing and distributing your patented item.

The example I recall involved a hypothetical desk. Let's pretend that Mr. Jones built the first wooden desk and received a valid a patent for his invention. Decades later Mr. Smith finds a particular use for a desk with a hole in the middle, applies for and receives a patent for his desk with the hole. He assumes the patent gives him the right to go into the business of manufacturing holy desks, so he sets up a factory and produces wooden desks with a hole in the middle. Mr. Smith one day receives a cease and desist order from Mr. Jones or his heirs, pointing out that the desk with the hole still infringes on the original Jones patent for wooden desks. But neither the Jones heirs nor a third party could legally build and sell desks with a hole in the middle.

This can be a problem with complex machines, since every component in that machine may already be covered by prior patents, even though a specific combination of components may held by a subsequent inventor.

That issue was particularly bothersome early in the 20th century with radio, and resulted in a tremendous number of lawsuits, many involving RCA as well as others. Practically every component or circuit necessary to build a radio was subject to a separate patent by a different individual. I believe RCA once tried to issue a cease and desist order against a plastics manufacturer that was producing Bakelite sheets, claiming that because those sheets were widely sold for making radio panels, they infringed on RCA's patents on vacuum tubes and associated circuits. For many years, RCA held a virtual monopoly on anything to do with radio.