Bonito Boats vs. Thundercraft- Analysis: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
4. Florida state law enacted prohibits selling products from direct molding process without patent | 4. Florida state law enacted prohibits selling products from direct molding process without patent | ||
5. | 5. Bonito Boat sues Thundercradton the grounds that Bonito Boats' design was copied breaks this statute and wants damages, injuntive relief, and legal fees. | ||
6. Court rules in favor of the defendant under Supremacy clause | 6. Court rules in favor of the defendant under Supremacy clause | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
== Judge == | == Judge == | ||
J. O'Connor | J. O'Connor | ||
== Case == | |||
1976 Bonito boats developed hull design for the 5VBR, created hardwood model for a mold to furnish boats for sale in Sept 1976. NO PATENT APPLICATION | |||
May 1983, 5VBR been established for 6 years, Florida legislature passes may no make and ore sell a vessel hull manufactured by direct molding without patent as of JULY 1, 1983 | |||
Dec 21 1984, Bonito Boats sues Thundercraft on basis of direct duplication of Bonito Boats 5VBR vessel hull. | |||
Florida Supreme Court ruled that only federal patent can prohibit copying of a public domain item | |||
Revision as of 16:19, 24 January 2011
Argued Dec. 5, 1988-Feb 21, 1989
Basic summary-
1. Bonito Boats makes fiberglass recreational boats and has a mold design for the Model 5VBR.
2. Sell for 6 years
3. No patent
4. Florida state law enacted prohibits selling products from direct molding process without patent
5. Bonito Boat sues Thundercradton the grounds that Bonito Boats' design was copied breaks this statute and wants damages, injuntive relief, and legal fees.
6. Court rules in favor of the defendant under Supremacy clause
Supremacy Law
a)state is getting in the way of creative public conceptions for free trade and competition
b)Protection?
c)Requiring patents stalls significant advances in technology
d)State may not make rules in intellectual creation if Congress has left it free
Lawyers
Petitioner: Tomas Morgan Russel, w/ Granger Cook Jr, John Schoene Respondent: appointed- Charles E. Lipsey, w/ Donald R. Dunner
Judge
J. O'Connor
Case
1976 Bonito boats developed hull design for the 5VBR, created hardwood model for a mold to furnish boats for sale in Sept 1976. NO PATENT APPLICATION
May 1983, 5VBR been established for 6 years, Florida legislature passes may no make and ore sell a vessel hull manufactured by direct molding without patent as of JULY 1, 1983
Dec 21 1984, Bonito Boats sues Thundercraft on basis of direct duplication of Bonito Boats 5VBR vessel hull.
Florida Supreme Court ruled that only federal patent can prohibit copying of a public domain item
