Difference between revisions of "1/21/11 : Bonito Boats notes"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Case Summary'''
 
'''Case Summary'''
  
-Bonito Boats: No patent filed for the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull or manufacturing process (sprayed-fiberglass mold) by which the finished boats were produced.
+
-Bonito Boats: No patent filed for the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull or manufacturing process (sprayed-fiberglass mold) by which the finished boats were produced (1976)
  
 
-After 6 years of production, a Florida statute prohibited the use of a direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, and the sale of them.  
 
-After 6 years of production, a Florida statute prohibited the use of a direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, and the sale of them.  
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
'''Notes and Facts of the case'''
 
'''Notes and Facts of the case'''
 +
 +
-No indication on record that a patent application was ever filed for protection of the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull, or the manufacturing process for the Bonito 5VBR (1976)
 +
 +
-Fla.Stat.(section)559.94(1987) statute makes it "unlawful for any person to use the direct molding process to duplicate for the purpose of sale any manufactured vessel hull or component part of a vessel made by another without the written permission of that person... [or] to knowingly sell a vessel hull or component part of a vessel duplicated in violation of subsection (2)." Applicable after July 1, 1983.
 +
 +
-Bonito Boats filed against Thunder Craft, a Tennessee Corporation, for violation of the Florida statute on December 21, 1984.
 +
      -Had Thunder Craft been in Florida, would this rule differently?
  
 
-
 
-
Line 19: Line 26:
  
 
-Does this ruling essentially nullify the Florida statute for the direct-mold manufacturing and sale of unpatented boat hulls?
 
-Does this ruling essentially nullify the Florida statute for the direct-mold manufacturing and sale of unpatented boat hulls?
 +
 +
-How can state legislature protect design ideas that patent laws leave unprotected?

Revision as of 22:18, 20 January 2011

Case Summary

-Bonito Boats: No patent filed for the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull or manufacturing process (sprayed-fiberglass mold) by which the finished boats were produced (1976)

-After 6 years of production, a Florida statute prohibited the use of a direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, and the sale of them.

-Bonito Boats filed action against Thunder Craft for violation of the Florida statute.

-Conclusion: dismissed by Florida Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court due to confliction with federal patent law via the Supremacy Clause; federal patent law rules higher than state law.


Notes and Facts of the case

-No indication on record that a patent application was ever filed for protection of the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull, or the manufacturing process for the Bonito 5VBR (1976)

-Fla.Stat.(section)559.94(1987) statute makes it "unlawful for any person to use the direct molding process to duplicate for the purpose of sale any manufactured vessel hull or component part of a vessel made by another without the written permission of that person... [or] to knowingly sell a vessel hull or component part of a vessel duplicated in violation of subsection (2)." Applicable after July 1, 1983.

-Bonito Boats filed against Thunder Craft, a Tennessee Corporation, for violation of the Florida statute on December 21, 1984.

     -Had Thunder Craft been in Florida, would this rule differently?

-


Questions

-Does this ruling essentially nullify the Florida statute for the direct-mold manufacturing and sale of unpatented boat hulls?

-How can state legislature protect design ideas that patent laws leave unprotected?