"> the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable?
I guess so. I am just not sure where this is heading." -----This may be headed towards a business venture or two, but mostly I'm just reinforcing my claims of bad business practices against Kevin and EdT. But, like my business venture coment suggests, they may really be on to something. That is why I am looking at your tunnel tent a little differently now. Like I said, I dont know anything about them, but maybe I dont need to. That part is appealling
"> you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?
That is true, BUT I have also said that there is very little new in this game, so anyone's ability to claim IP rights is very limited. Yes, I support IP rights, but equally I oppose any unjustified extension of a claim beyond what is strictly provable." ----I'm sure my patent lawyer can address this better, but trying to apply the burden and level of novelty, required for a patent is excessive in this case. That does not negate the fact that products are a sum of their parts and features. It is industry norm to borrow and adapt those individual parts, designs, and features, for a number of reasons. Maybe a new use, maybe making something more affordable, maybe making it lighter, etc. But, if you use many individual parts, designs, and features(especially in multiple products) and you are not greatly distinguishable in some way shape of form, from those that came before, ie. innovation, better materials, price, function, etc. You are just copying and profiting, overwhelmingly, on some one elses work. Two reasons to do this. First, you cant innovate on your own, and your not skilled or knowledgable. Second, its much easier to follow in other peoples footsteps. Just like with finished products being a sum of their parts, either one of these on their own is understandable, but togther, they constitute some inexcusable behavior.
"In this case, seems to me the IP rights to most tipi features belong to some Red Indian who died hundreds of years ago. I am happy to be shown new and novel features, but they would have to be 'non-obvious to someone skilled in the arts', to use the patent language." ----The US Patent office disagrees with you on this, and there is long standing history to support their assertion. The first being a patent, on what you would call a "tipi". Its about details, not just one detail, but the sum of many details, and the way they work together. Some parts very key and central, while others work in conjuction with lesser and greater elements to create a unique final product. How unique?, depends on who makes it, and what you compare it to. Also, while I am not exactly indigenous to this continent, some of the folks that call me "Brother", would much prefer the terms American Indian, or First Nations People.
"Maybe you should write an article on tipis for BGT?" -----Maybe, that would be a good way to launch things. Let me start another thread, and ask my potential customers what they would like to see. I am told it is they, that I should listen to on this.