Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, and for goodness sake delete this entire thread if it becomes a can of worms (!) but this question has
bothered me since the whole 'Locost' thing has been going.
We're all aware of the Caterham - Westfield legal issue, I just wondered how it is that we are any different? How do all the 'band-wagon' locost
manufacturers step around the fact that the design of the Locost is identical to the original Lotus/Caterham, the very design that got Westfield into
trouble? Surely the precedent has been set?
Your opinion?
..Or just tell me to shut up! 
as far as i am aware if the car you are building is IDENTICAL in every respect,then you got problems,change a few bits here and there and your
ok,after all all cars have a wheel in each corner ,an engine that works the same way as every other engine,the new toyota rice burner gti thing looks
like a focus from a few feet 
If you want to really open up a can of whoop-ass (sorry, worms, but they do the same thing if you get 'em), then you need to start talking
intellectual property......
(I ain't 'cos I ain't starting anything...)
No worries on this one 
Its allready been in court and the man ron champion won
So you can all build to your hearts content
quote:
Its allready been in court and the man ron champion won
Not sure on all the details,it was a while ago but lets think about it!
Haynes are without doubt one of if not the biggest book publishers in europe
VERSUS over priced cottage industry car builders.
Well i think that one was in the bag before it started
AFAIK, ages ago Caterham took Westfield to court because W's car was much too close to C's. W's 'post-litigation' car was different enough to avoid
problems.
With Ron, Westfield took exception because the Locost appeared to be an almost exact copy of their live axle model. I believe that Ron's defense was
that
a) the design and technology originated in the very early days of club racing (RC comes from the same era as Colin Chapman)
b) Westfield's design was largely copied from someone else anyway (as was proved in court)
c) W hadn't bothered to patent their design, so what were they complaining about.
This is all hearsay, so don't quote me!
It's significant that Westfield's current designs are all patented, including the shape of their bodywork. So no more exact copies!
David
P.S. this is interesting... Westfield is censored but Caterham and swear words aren't!
Good point...
Caterham should be, as should Dutton plus any others people care to mention that they don't like....
I don't think swear words need to be though, I feel we're all old enough to use them sparingly and not take offense.
Cheers.
Rich.
Anyone suggesting censoring Dax gets a slap though
who give's a toss ? 
True, but you probably would if you saw me looming at you
David & Others,
Went to Chris Smith's I.Mech.E. presentation last year. He is W******ld MD, and commenting on the history of the litigation issue, said that the legal
advice, from their patent agent, was that there was no copyright infringement. Furthermore, when C*t*rh*m initiated proceedings against the W oufit,
they discovered that they had no legal rights to the old Lotus design 7. It was still held by Lotus, so C*t*rh*m had to get it assigned over to them,
to continue their action.
Sorry to bang on - but this may be of mild, historical interest.
The old copyright Act & the Registered Design Act were bridged by a clause which stated (as far as memory serves) that copyright in any design last
only as long as a registered design (15 years), if that design was capable of being registered as a Registered Design.
This is of particular significance, especially to those of you old enough to remember Dinky, Lesney & Matchbox toys. Some vehicle makers registered
their designs to prevent unauthorized copying of their latest cars by the die-cast toymakers.
One of those vehicle makers was Lotus (probably making money from licences).
and Matchbox produced a 'Super Seven' in their 75 range!! Bet no-one objected to that!
I have heard people saying that the use of '7' in the nose grille was frowned uppon by Caterham, let them see if they can put a copyright on a
number!!
The only time that you might get hit is if you dress it up as a 7 and try to sell it as such. I believe that this is called 'passing off' (I thank
that's what he said ).
But that isn't copyright anyway - it's 'attepting to defraud' or somesuch thing.
David
quote:
I have heard people saying that the use of '7' in the nose grille was frowned uppon by Caterham
quote:
let them see if they can put a copyright on a number!!