McNaughton Who??? Did anyone else see this!!! (Lawsuit)

[Mike Z]

I've talked to Brent about the suit, like what has already been said, it is over the design of the pincers. What I don't understand is that if the suit involves the design and manufacturing then why are distributors also named in the suit?

Because the distributors are profiting off the sale of the illegally produced items. (potentially) I'll admit that while they didn't produce the items, they may be named so that the process can identify realistically how many of these baits were sold so that a settlement number can be obtained on accurate numbers. The lawsuit may also seek to uncover correspondence to see if any of the vendors knew about the patent infringement.

Its a big game right now but typically everyone gets sued and the judge will decide if people get excluded from the case.

[slonezp]

I wonder how the crayfish feel about this. Poor crawdads have nobody to defend them. All these bait companies stole their "likeness". There should be some retribution. The crayfish should at least get some royalty checks.

[Chaz Hickcox]

I wonder how the crayfish feel about this. Poor crawdads have nobody to defend them. All these bait companies stole their "likeness". There should be some retribution. The crayfish should at least get some royalty checks.

Oh good now we're going to have to worry about the phenomina in Bee Movie.  Good job Slone for bringing that up.  Now, whoever finds the talking crawdad, USE HIM FOR BAIT!!!!

[tyrius.]

Is reaction inovations included in the suit?  If not, how can they not be?  They're the ones who first created the beaver which was the bait that is being knocked off. 

No one is directly copying the paca.

[Mattlures]

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw.  No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.

This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

[Pantera61]

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.

This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

[tyrius.]

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!!

Matt, I know this and it's the whole point of my questions.  If it isn't about the beaver then what bait is it about?  Go look at ***'s soft plastics and let me know which one of his baits could even come close.  The only one that I can think of is the chunk T and that seems to be a big stretch.

[backpain...]

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.

This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

There ya go, a sound defence.

[Pantera61]

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.

This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

There ya go, a sound defence.

I've heard worse.

[tyrius.]

Another thing that I find a bit odd is that Netbait sells a knock off of the beaver (B Bug).

Since the beaver is patented by RI, isn't Netbait just as bad as the people that they are suing?

[Raul]

Another thing that I find a bit odd is that Netbait sells a knock off of the beaver (B Bug).

Since the beaver is patented by RI, isn't Netbait just as bad as the people that they are suing?

What if Netbait is manufacturing the bait under license from RI ?

[tyrius.]

What if Netbait is manufacturing the bait under license from RI ?

Hadn't considered that.

This whole deal makes me happy that I didn't chose to go into the legal field. 

Nothing here seems to be all that straight forward and logical.   

[Raul]

Another possibility, RI is actually manufacturing the baits for NetBait, NetBait is selling them under a different name.

My partner and I do that a lot with our products, we make the exact same product we sell for other people ( the only difference is the color and the scent ) and we sell it to them either in bulk ( they fill their containers on their own ) or already bottled in the containers they choose ( all they have to do is label it or we can even do that, of course that process has an extra charge ).

[Mattlures]

Ok The "beaver" is not patented, just like the "paca" is not patented. AS A WHOLE BAIT. Certain aspects of the beaver which I believe are the unique ribs. Not the beaver itsself.

Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

like I said before there are several different forms of patents and there are copywrites and trademarks. These are all there to protect original ideas and designs. The claws on the paca are original and this is a fact. That fact is proven because they were issued a patent.

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

One more thing, and I could be wrong but I dont think so. I believe that before you can sue, you have to send a letter of cease and disist. In other words, they are given a warning. If they choose to ignore it AND THEY ARE INFRINGING then they absolutly desrve to get sued.

[Thad]

I don't think Andre is making baits for McNaughton though. I was talking to a pro staff member and it seems they don't like each other vary well. They said R.I. was going to make a copy of the Paca craw because NetBait ripped off the Beaver almost exactly. That's just hearsay though.

[Pantera61]

...

Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

...

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

...

As the guy who made the comments regarding the claws:

I was being facetious.

[Osprey39]

Matt, you're 100% correct, intellectual property is property.  From what I've gathered reading this thread, the guy's suit has merit.  Part of the problem with our society is that people that would never go into a store and steal something have no problem downloading an MP3, software or movie that they don't pay for.  They think it's no big deal. 

[Mattlures]

Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.

But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

[Pantera61]

...

Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

...

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

...

As the guy who made the comments regarding the claws:

I was being facetious.

And actually you're wrong about patenting a duplicate.  There is a huge difference between making a cast of a living or non-living creature and actually carving or sculpting a reproduction of a living thing.

If you pour plastic into the mold of a fish and finished  product does nothing except look like a fish, no motion, no action, no nothing, what can you patent?

Your lures, on the other hand, reproduce a mechanical movement or are have motion or action is patentable.

[Grey Wolf]

Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.

But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

No matter how you say it ,  stealing is stealing.

[Mattlures]

Pantera61 In the taxidermy market when a company makes a mold of a fish and sells the reproductions they can protect their castings. I believe with a copywrite.

Bass-Brat thats what I said, but its a larger crime when you sell it. Personal use and selling for proffit are two different levels. BTW the last time I stole a song was over 3 years ago.

Brent, it is not for any of us to judge. That is the job of the judge. Maybe you could contact some of the other companies named in the suit and go in with their lawyer at a fraction of the cost.

As for the timing of the patent, You have 1 year after the product has been shown to aply for patent. then you have to show due dilligence while its pending to have your patent granted. This can take a while.

[K_Mac]

Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.

But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

Matt I'm mostly on your side here, BUT how can you say that stealing intellectual property related to fishing is "much worse" than stealing from music artists? The intellectual property of a musician is just as valuable to him as yours is to you. The argument that fishing related theft is worse because it is "a much larger scale" would be hard to make to the people in the music business who are losing millions because of illegal Internet practices.

[Pantera61]

Pantera61 In the taxidermy market when a company makes a mold of a fish and sells the reproductions they can protect their castings. I believe with a copywrite.

Bass-Brat thats what I said, but its a larger crime when you sell it. Personal use and selling for proffit are two different levels. BTW the last time I stole a song was over 3 years ago.

Brent, it is not for any of us to judge. That is the job of the judge. Maybe you could contact some of the other companies named in the suit and go in with their lawyer at a fraction of the cost.

As for the timing of the patent, You have 1 year after the product has been shown to aply for patent. then you have to show due dilligence while its pending to have your patent granted. This can take a while.

@Mattlures:  I'm not talking about anything beyond protecting a basic cast of a prey animal.  I understand what you're talking about protecting and I'm actually in total agreement with what you're saying. 

[Raul]

Ok, that 's it, now I 've got a headache.

Wish Irene was here.

[Mattlures]

K-mac thats not what I said. I said its worse when you sell it. It is larger crime. If you download a song or copy a lure for your own personal use you are only steeling 1 thing. If you mass produce that lure or song and sell them to thousands of people then you are steeling many times. I did not say one thing is ok and the other is not. I said one is worse then the other.