Content deleted Content added
→Patents: added my thoughts on patents and magic methods |
|||
Line 13:
:Seems someone did update it. Looks good, thanks. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 21:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Patent law does not apply to a method unless the method is part of a patentable gimmick, but even then, it isn't the method that is patented, but the operation of the gimmick. This whole thing is a very tricky part of the law. Until case law can produce some precedent, all of this will just have to live in the world of conjecture. Ultimately, anything that is patented is publicly disclosed anyway, so it is a Catch-22. --[[User:Gijones|Gijones]] 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I think that what you are saying is already reflected to some extent in the text of the article. Patents give a particular type of protection - they were never intended as a way to help people keep things secret. This topic is not all conjecture because there IS some case law on patents in relation to magic. It reflects the limits of patent protection. Goldin used patents to try to prevent anyone else doing the sawing illusion and fought a number of court cases in relation to them. But Goldin ultimately lost his case relating to exposure because he neglected the fact that the patent process requires you to lodge publicly accessible copies of the details of the invention in question.[[User:Circusandmagicfan|Circusandmagicfan]] 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
== Industry standard and praxis ==
| |||