Bonito Boats v. ThunderCraft: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
BONITO BOATS vs. THUNDER CRAFT | BONITO BOATS vs. THUNDER CRAFT | ||
-Background | |||
➢ Bonito Boats made a hull design and mfr method for a fiberglass hull boat – didn’t patent either – 5VBR boat | ➢ Bonito Boats made a hull design and mfr method for a fiberglass hull boat – didn’t patent either – 5VBR boat | ||
➢ 6 years later, Florida Leg. Prohibited repro. Of unpatented boat hulls and Bonito sued Thunder | ➢ 6 years later, Florida Leg. Prohibited repro. Of unpatented boat hulls and Bonito sued Thunder | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
➢ Ruling made clear state reg of int. prop. Must yield to fed law | ➢ Ruling made clear state reg of int. prop. Must yield to fed law | ||
• Essentially gave patent like protection to unpatented ideas – eliminated free competition sponsored by Fed on unpatentable items | • Essentially gave patent like protection to unpatented ideas – eliminated free competition sponsored by Fed on unpatentable items | ||
• Law essentially gave eternal protection even for | • Law essentially gave eternal protection even for publicly released data | ||
• Prohibits reverse engineering of a common product | • Prohibits reverse engineering of a common product | ||
• The study and combination of unpatented articles may lead to sig. tech advances | • The study and combination of unpatented articles may lead to sig. tech advances | ||
-Decision – O’Connor – USSC | |||
-Section 1 - Backgorund | |||
➢ Must decide what states’ rights are in terms of IP that patent laws leave unprotected | ➢ Must decide what states’ rights are in terms of IP that patent laws leave unprotected | ||
➢ Florida in conflict with CA – USSC sides with FLSC – FL law wrong | ➢ Florida in conflict with CA – USSC sides with FLSC – FL law wrong | ||
➢ Based on the fact that only a patent can protect things in the public domain – defense was that the law only prohibits one means of reproduction not all | ➢ Based on the fact that only a patent can protect things in the public domain – defense was that the law only prohibits one means of reproduction not all | ||
-Section 2 – Why law is bad in this part. case | |||
➢ US Const. gives power but also limits the power for patents – limited time protection and cant be used to remove already existing knowledge form the public domain | ➢ US Const. gives power but also limits the power for patents – limited time protection and cant be used to remove already existing knowledge form the public domain | ||
➢ TJ stressed importance of patented thing couldn’t have been in public work prior to patent – Sections of the US code enforce this | ➢ TJ stressed importance of patented thing couldn’t have been in public work prior to patent – Sections of the US code enforce this | ||
➢ In general – state laws that offer protect for stuff already discloased may conflict with the very purpose of the fed patent laws | ➢ In general – state laws that offer protect for stuff already discloased may conflict with the very purpose of the fed patent laws | ||
➢ State trade secret laws are ok because they do not go against the inherent framework and goals of the fed patent laws | ➢ State trade secret laws are ok because they do not go against the inherent framework and goals of the fed patent laws | ||
-Section 3 – Taking down the FL law | |||
➢ Doesn’t operate to really protect against unfair competition – usually guards against consumer confusion as to source | ➢ Doesn’t operate to really protect against unfair competition – usually guards against consumer confusion as to source | ||
➢ FL law doesn’t really do this, it instead doles out patent rights to the utility and functionality of a non-patented product | ➢ FL law doesn’t really do this, it instead doles out patent rights to the utility and functionality of a non-patented product | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 21 January 2011
BONITO BOATS vs. THUNDER CRAFT
-Background
➢ Bonito Boats made a hull design and mfr method for a fiberglass hull boat – didn’t patent either – 5VBR boat ➢ 6 years later, Florida Leg. Prohibited repro. Of unpatented boat hulls and Bonito sued Thunder ➢ Trial court, Florida Appeals, and Florida SC affirmed dismissal • Ruled Florida statute overruled by fed patent law – Supremacy clause ➢ Ruling made clear state reg of int. prop. Must yield to fed law • Essentially gave patent like protection to unpatented ideas – eliminated free competition sponsored by Fed on unpatentable items • Law essentially gave eternal protection even for publicly released data • Prohibits reverse engineering of a common product • The study and combination of unpatented articles may lead to sig. tech advances
-Decision – O’Connor – USSC -Section 1 - Backgorund
➢ Must decide what states’ rights are in terms of IP that patent laws leave unprotected ➢ Florida in conflict with CA – USSC sides with FLSC – FL law wrong ➢ Based on the fact that only a patent can protect things in the public domain – defense was that the law only prohibits one means of reproduction not all
-Section 2 – Why law is bad in this part. case
➢ US Const. gives power but also limits the power for patents – limited time protection and cant be used to remove already existing knowledge form the public domain ➢ TJ stressed importance of patented thing couldn’t have been in public work prior to patent – Sections of the US code enforce this ➢ In general – state laws that offer protect for stuff already discloased may conflict with the very purpose of the fed patent laws ➢ State trade secret laws are ok because they do not go against the inherent framework and goals of the fed patent laws
-Section 3 – Taking down the FL law
➢ Doesn’t operate to really protect against unfair competition – usually guards against consumer confusion as to source ➢ FL law doesn’t really do this, it instead doles out patent rights to the utility and functionality of a non-patented product
