"Mea Culpa" Hartvigsen Admits Fraudulent Intellectual Property Claims to Yahoo Microhydro Group , June, 4, 2010
[microhydro] Copyright Protection - Mea Culpa
Friday, June 4, 2010 6:39 PM
From:
"turgo_gen"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
microhydro@yahoogroups.com
To the moderator and members of the group: I apologize in advance for bringing this topic up again. I know there has been a decision to cut off this thread of discussion, so feel free to ignore it if you are not interested. If you are only marginally interested skip to the bottom for a summary.
In the past I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED TO RON to stop this nonsense :
So, here is my offer. I will post an email message stating my corrected understanding of the limited protection of copyright to this circumstance and that due to my mistake in not requiring a non-copy condition of sale I don't have any power to prohibit Ron from making copies of the original orange plastic spoon.
In turn Ron will post an email retracting all of his false accusations against me and Peter.
In particular, admitting that.
1) I was not fraudulently trying to rip him off in this matter because Peter and I had a reasonable belief there was some protection based on copyright.
2) Ingella Carlson and ... are who we said they were.
3) I did not withhold any information regarding his invention from my employer.
4) had I had the foresight to require a non-copy agreement as a condition of sale he would have been prohibited from making copies contractually.
5) Ron, using phony email addresses was the one who dragged this whole thing out in public to start with.
This has come back up because one of Ron's friends hired a lawyer to represent Ron on this issue, again an issue I've tried to drop since it was clear nearly ten years ago that there was no reaching an agreement. I met with the lawyer several months ago. He gave a different view of the protection of copyright than I had been given in an informal discussion of the matter years previous with another patent attorney.
Ron's attorney explained that copyright can cover the appearance of an item but not the functional aspects. I argued that since Ron was using the part as his mold core (i.e. to create his mold by molding around this part) he was making a direct impression of the part and thereby it would have the same appearance. He was not just using the concept or something similar. Ron's attorney explained that even so, since it was a functional item the courts focus on that rather than the appearance. He suggested I look at wikipedia on copyrights and specifically for functional aspects which I did. My response to him that day is copied below.
>>>>
Hi Brian,
Thank you for taking the time to meet and discuss Ron's concerns with me today. I have reviewed portions of the wiki article on copyright and taken particular note of the "functional aspects" and "Scènes à faire" discussions. This does give a different view that I had taken away from several readings of the Copyrights Basics (circ01.pdf file on copyrights.gov) circular and from a previous discussion of the matter with an attorney. It appears that copyright protection of this spoon , even though it is an "original work fixed in a tangible form of expression" could be considered "thin" because of the functional nature of the article - in spite of the fact that circ01 claims the protected categories "should be viewed broadly".
For my part, I was ready to drop this matter several years ago but felt compelled to defend my position when the topic was broached by Ron in a public forum. I suspect Ron still feels the need to defend his position. I am willing to agree to disagree privately and to drop the matter publicly. I have no interest in engaging Ron further on this issue and have repeatedly told him so. I can't speak for Peter (who I believe is the current owner of whatever there is to be owned in this regard), but his actions over the years, or lack of taking formal actions, would suggest that he is of a similar feeling in the matter.
It has never been my objective to hinder Ron's work with the watermotor or Camp Nuevo. In fact I have tried to help him as far as I was able, subject to my agreements with and my obligation to protect what I believe rightly belonged to Peter or earlier to Mrs. Ingela Carlsson. In the interim, I have designed, fabricated molds and produced parts for a new range of sizes some of which would be potentially applicable to Ron's watermotor projects. Since there has been a considerable investment in the creation of these new parts and since Ron and I don't share the same view on copying, unless otherwise constrained by law we would have to address copying in the terms and conditions prior to any future sales to Ron.
Regards,
Joe
>>>
A further communication to Ron's attorney follows.
>>>
After our conversation ... I followed your suggestion to read on wikipedia and copyrights.gov related to functional aspects of a design, I found the following beyond the circ01.pdf from copyrights.gov that I had referred Ron to in support of my understanding of the mater (some of the wiki content has since changed).
This is the main link of interest pertaining to the question.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html
This also has some relevant discussion in the section on "Copyrightable" (last paragraph - content no longer there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#.22Copyrightable.22_as_a_word
Basically confirming your claim that the functionally dictated aspects are not protected by copyright,
and even a design patent doesn't really help with the functional aspect of the specific profile
of a functional item.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_utility_patents
However, I have also read and I don't have the citation at hand that in some countries (Britain ? ) not only can a mechanical drawing be copyright, but the copyright protection also extends to using the drawing to make the article shown in the copyright drawing or blueprint. If the drawing can't be used to make the article, then the use of the article (which is intrinsically and automatically copyright) directly as the mold form should also be prohibited. This is not the case in the US apparently.
So there seems to be a grey area which while it might be difficult to enforce copyright as protection, it would also be difficult to show (in conjunction with circ01) that there are no aspects of the copyright that were being violated (i.e. claims of copyright protection being 100% without basis). It is all too technical for me and I don't have any interest (and never did) in pursuing it. The only reason is was ever brought up beyond myself, Peter and Ron is that Ron dragged it out in every forum he could because he thinks I am a liar and a cheat...
So, here is my offer. I will post an email message stating my corrected understanding of the limited protection of copyright to this circumstance and that due to my mistake in not requiring a non-copy condition of sale I don't have any power to prohibit Ron from making copies of the original orange plastic spoon.
In turn Ron will post an email retracting all of his false accusations against me and Peter.
In particular, admitting that
1) I was not fraudulently trying to rip him off in this matter because Peter
and I had a reasonable belief there was some protection based on copyright.
2) Ingella Carlson and ... are who we said they were.
3) I did not withhold any information regarding his invention from my employer.
4) had I had the foresight to require a non-copy agreement as a condition of
sale he would have been prohibited from making copies contractually.
5) Ron, using phony email addresses was the one who dragged this whole thing
out in public to start with.
>>>
So, in summary:
1) I never wanted to bring this to the group before or now but am doing so at Ron's insistence. I was willing to drop it or agree to disagree, but that was not acceptable to Ron, and I am tired of his harassment over this issue after 10 years of me trying to drop it.
2) In the USA at least, copyright does not offer the protection that I had been told it did, and that it appeared to give by my reading of circ01.pdf on copyrights.gov
3) In some countries, copyright does preclude a person from using a copyright article to create a copy of what is described by that article. So, it is possible that there is some level of protection in some countries.
4) Had I had the benefit of hindsight I could have avoided this whole mess by making no-copy a contractual condition of sale.
5) Some people will think it is wrong to copy whether it is legal or not. Some people will think it is ok to copy whether it is illegal or not.
6) Peter and I (and I am not speaking for Peter in any of this) had reasonable belief that what we were asking of Ron was fair and legal.
7) Other than my incorrect understanding of copyright protection, all other accusations Ron has been making against Peter and myself are totally false and without basis.
Joe
