I guess most of us have grown tired
of these discussions that seem to make moral issues out of personal opinions at a speed and with such an ease that it defies any comparison. Lena Johnson is right, all intellectual property rights on the Eames products have expired, with the exception of the copyright on the name and a few combinations like: designed by....( Copyright is the legislation that provides de longest protection but excludes models of industrially made products) So you simply do not need a license to produce these products.
You neither steal from de death designer (difficult to pull off anyway) nor from the family or the company that was licensed to produce them when it was still protected. This is simply not an ethical or moral question, it is a legal one, started back in under Elisabeth 1, who found it fitting to encourage craftsmen to reveal there trade secrets in order to develop the craft in other parts of England. The incentive she offered was a life time monopoly on the described techniques. The live of the stained glass makers in question was not that long so the patent she offered lasted about 18 years. The rest is as we say?history. But the basics stayed. All protection of intellectual property is based on encouraging the inventor or designer to disclose his or her secret in exchange for a time limited monopoly. When the state finds it interesting to promote the work of inventors or designers the period of protection might be lengthened simply by legislation, but there is no moral right. But let?s just for argument sake consider intellectual property a moral issue. Would it, in that case not be justified to limit the property in time? My argument would be that any invention, any product is the result of a few factors unrelated to the inventor's talent, one being the times in which one lives. There are in other words very good reasons why Eames did not design beautiful renaissance or Biedermeyer furniture. The second factor is certainly education. Neither Charles nor Ray have ever hidden the fact that much credit was due to the Cranbrook school and some teachers like Maya Grotell in particular. Education and the level of knowledge that is available in schools and universities is the result of long accumulated efforts by many people, and can not be claimed by one person. Last but not least something triggers the Eureka moment that we call an invention or a new design. In most cases it is an intuitive moment that is based on all kinds of information that one has gathered over time. An example of that kind of information in the Eames case is certainly the already known laminated wood technology. It can also be triggered by the work of colleagues, etc. etc.
cont.
...Even or especially on moral grounds, I would argue that those elements are reason enough to return that intellectual property to where it came from: society in general. That is exactly what the legislation and international conventions on Intellectual property does?yes, even a child could understand that. Legal protection of intellectual property encourages people to invent to innovate and to design, so let?s have the highest possible respect for it, as long as it legally lasts. To buy a product that has reached the public domain and that is not protected anymore should be based on accuracy (how close is it to the original) quality of materials and craftmanship, service of the manufacturer and distribution and price...not on earning a place in design heaven.
names ??
i didn't call anyone a name....... you are imagining things. (which calls into question anything else you purport)
i cannot believe that folks have convinced themselves that it is actually okay to steal other peoples work.
i could offer a convoluted analysis and throw in some historical color to try to sound like i have authority as did the previous post... and say "there"
but quite frankly i am not interested in having that conversation..... barney frank said it best last month:
"trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table, i have no interest in doing it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
Dear Chewbacca rug...
I am surprised that you would qualify the logic behind the legislation on intellectual property as pretzel logic. Patent legislation, both for inventions and designs and copyright legislation, and to some extend the legislation on trade names is all based on the general principle outlined in my earlier contribution. To suggest a resemblance between a lady calling healthcare legislation a nazi policy and my arguments is highly unfair. I can understand Barney Frank's reaction, but I fail to understand why his reaction would apply to a description of the legal facts and some background information on how the legislation came about. I do not behave as a dining room table and have proven in the past that I am indeed more responsive than and more openminded for other people's arguments than this most useful piece of furniture.
You could have argued that in spite of the rejection of any patent legislation in the early years of U.S. independence, American society has evolved in a direction in which intellectual property is perceived, not as the coming together of a number of contributions but as the result of an individual effort. From refusing in the early days of the republic to recognize patents, in order to allow skilled immigrants to freely copy the products they knew and had learned to make in their countries of origin, public opinion in the U.S. is changing and considers an invention or a design as one of the many ways to succeed individually in achieving the so called American Dream. You could have argued that in fact, the legislation on patents that protect such precious property for a maximum of 20 years, give or take a few years is outdated. New legislation should reflect this new acquired consensus. You could also argue that the U.S. as the most powerful nation on the planet could and should stop honouring international conventions on intellectual property (Paris, Lisbon, Geneva etc.) in order to force other nations and other cultures into that U.S. consensus. I am as sure as the dining room table that people on this forum, myself included, would listen to your arguments and respond in good faith, and not by drawing vertical black lines under someone else's nose.
chewbaccarug...
It is always okay to admit that someone else is right, when the other person has the law, the facts, the logic, and the honorable intent on their side.
It is actually liberating and respectable to learn something.
I had never had this issue put to me this clearly prior to Koen's exposition.
I learned something.
Would you then please offer the level of detail supporting your position?
If you feel that Koen's entirely cogent exposition of the facts is in error, please, teach us all something and offer the facts and data that suport your viewpoint.
Having been involved with IP and patent law for most of my career, I can only agree, and have done so on many occassions, with Koen's highly informed viewpoint. However if you have something else to offer, then I'll be willing to learn.
Patent law is very specific, choosing to purchase 'knockoffs' is not theft. You may choose not to do it and thereby make yourself feel righteous whilst lining the pockets of the 'licensed' producer, but you are not taking any moral or legal highground by doing so. If that was the case all those generic drugs you get so inexpensively at your local pharmacy would not exist. If you will only buy Tylenol brand acetomenaphen, well then, that's your right. But buying CVS brand is no less valid.
I think whitespike, who has on a number of occassions stated his dislike of 'repros' and knockoffs', has the only defensible position, he buys vintage. That's the only way to buy classic designs and call them authentic.
Period.
ditto...
Chewy, none of us...
ditto...
Chewy, none of us dispute your stance. Progenitors deserve to reap the rewards of their creation The way I'm seeing it, ultimately your piousness aligns itself with a monopolistic approach to protectionism.
Monopolies hinder developments. Monopolies unreasonably stratify wealth and power to very few or even just one person. Long term...monopolies are horribly bad for everyone.
Please give this some objective thoughts...and I'm not saying blatant copies of the Barcelona chair made in China is right, or recording your favorite albums from a friends CD collection is right, or copying Lagerfeld thread for thread is right.
Dear Olive and DCWilson
Thank you for supporting some or all of my arguments, both of you are aware of my limited knowledge of the English language, so your comments have taken away the largest part of my doubts about having stated my position clearly.
Dear Chewbacca rug, We also use the expression about not being able to see the forest for the trees, so I understand your argument. There is not much I could ad without looking stubborn or silly. Your argument surprises me because I have both given the general view which is that the protection of intellectual property is a privilege accorded by the legislator, and not a moral right.
And yes, I included the description of some trees by giving some historical and background details. Here we also have nice expressions including this one that you could use in your next answer: "Chercher noise pour noisettes" Chercher is "looking for", noise is not the English noise but comes from the latin "Nausea", while "pour" means "for" and "noisettes", small nuts in other words it means: looking for trouble for something that's not related or too small to bother.
Unless the aim of the discussion is to deepen our understanding of what intellectual property is, how it can promote better products and services to society etc. this would be my last contribution on the subject because I know that after having gone through a number of expressions your ultimate argument will be "God asked me to write it"
chewbacca reading your ...
chewbacca reading your post greatly angers me.
You as everyone has the right to your opinion.
Koen has proved himself as one of the most respected contributors to this forum over the last 10 years.
His knowledge of design is far superior to anyone on this forum has he has proved himself as a artist,industrial designer, and foremost authority in the field of design.
I am sure he has no hard feeling for your comments, as I am sure he enjoys the challenge of the facts.
I find them offensive, feel free to attack my opinions
but leave his alone.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com