Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

If the innovations have no points of similarity to the other device, then the innovations should be subject to patent, or trademark, or copyright, or whatever legal thing would apply. The innovations are one thing, the overall device is another.

I think where it gets interesting is at what point an innovation constitutes a "modification?"

Consider a cake recipe that`s been copyrighted. I come along and add to it shredded carrots. I`ve modified the recipe, making an innovative decision on my own. So? The bulk of the recipe remained the same. I see no difference in this and the plagiarism laws assigned to music.

But suppose I start with a ballpoint pen, using patented technology. This time my innovation is in the way the ink is pushed to the nib. I develop a miniscule nuclear reactor and put it into the original `Parker` ballpoint.

At what point does an innovation fundamentally change the design of the original device? If there aren`t any laws on this, then I`d be surprised. But to say that the point is determined by "well...anyone can see! It`s obvious!" is bad law, in my opinion.

When an invention is oveious it has to do with someone who is versed in the art and if it would be ovious for them to see the modefication or not. I am not a patent attorney but I remember my attorney trying to teach me the difference so that I could patent my invention of the Flip-In-Cold, beverage holder.

Flip-It

-------------------------

FLIP-IT