Jump to content
Bassinjunkie88

Linmarfishing.com's Beaver Mold

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if the Beaver that is sold on this site is copyrighted/trademarked?  I thought about trying it out, even though it's a flat sided bait, but didn't want to get in trouble with it.  Please let me know what you think, or direct me to where I can find other Beaver type baits.  Thanks,

Here's a pic:

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

Beaver.JPG

post-20733-0-10838400-1359637166_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have that mold and make some flat sided beavers for myself and only for myself. I would never sell those to anyone, especially with RI being less than 5 minutes down the road from me! Feel free to buy it if you want to make some baits for yourself but don't try and sell them to anyone because you could very well find a letter from RI's lawyer in your mailbox and that is something you certainly don't want.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del and lure craft had to take there beaver molds down from there sites.Back when RI was really going after people i don`t think you were not even to say the word beaver.lol Guess they never seen this site and there mold.I had some molds of dels and just posted a photo and never sold any and got my hand slapped. :drool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you as the consumer wouldnt get in trouble, just dont go selling them to people haha. if they sell the mold, you can buy it. you wont get in trouble for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Beaver is trademarked. So you cannot use that combination of words. 

 

They do not state that the bait is patented on there site. Is there a patent number on the bag (I don't use that bait...and so I don't have a bag to look at).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you as the consumer wouldnt get in trouble, just dont go selling them to people haha. if they sell the mold, you can buy it. you wont get in trouble for that

 

That is a myth, even if you copy it once for yourself you can in fact be taken to court. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a myth, even if you copy it once for yourself you can in fact be taken to court. 

 

yes if you make the mold yourself and do that, it is illegal. however if you buy that companies product and shoot baits for yourself theres no way that can be illegal.

 

if someone copied coca colas recipe and you bought it and drank it, are you going to be brought to court? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ipt, the mold itself that the mold company is selling is illegal.  So making a bait off of it would also be illegal.  The Sweet Beaver name is copyrighted and the bait itself is patented.  And Andre protects it very well.  And he also monitors TU.  So most likely, Linmarfishing is going to receive a phone call or letter.  He's already went after Strike King for patent infringement and he also forced Del-Mar and Lurecraft to stop selling the Sweet Beaver molds.  So if the mold is illegal why wouldn't baits off of the mold be illegal?  It doesn't matter who makes the mold. 

 

DaBehr, if you will look at the bottom right hand corner of Reaction's website, you will see the patent number for the Sweet Beaver. 

 

Guys I really don't understand why someone doing hand pours would want to do an exact copy of a bait.  Seems like to me, one of the whole reasons for doing hand pours is coming up with unique and personal designs.  But everyone needs to keep in mind that a lot of these big companies monitor TU.  Not only do they check for patent infringements and copyright violations, but they also search for new design ideas.  So be careful what you post. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suppose it could be illegal if you knew it was illegal when you bought it and used it... i just dont see how it can be the consumers responsibility to check patent numbers and designs to make sure what they are buying is legal. 

 

if you buy something at the store that later is ruled a copyright / patent infringement, you committed a crime? you arent responsible for what people sell and figuring out if they are infact legal or not.

 

im not promoting buying copies or copying baits at all, its all for argument sake that you can buy what someone offers until told otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask any law enforcement officer or court official they will tell you real quick ignorance of the law is no excuse, but think about it for a minute, its a very popular bait and none of the other major mold makers have the mold, that there is enough for a red flag. I agree with you that the consumer is kind of innocent on this thing, but not knowing that its illegal cannot stop you from being prosecuted. I know this because my wife is deputy clerk of courts at our local court house. It boils down to an irresponsible mold maker not caring about his customers as much as he does his money, some of these guys need to do there homework before they put a copy for sale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example would be of a pawn shop buying an item they thought was legit. If the police learn you bought a "hot" item, even though you did everything in your power to make sure it was a legitimate purchase, they are still going to confiscate said item and the pawn broker is left holding the bag. And like Mike said, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I can vouch for that one from personal experience.

 

Ben

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what "part" of that bait is patented, but there are plenty of similar molds that are available and legal

 

....Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the ribs on the body is patented maybe the tail.Back when RI was going after everyone i heard there lawyers had a search engine that would search out the word beaver on all of the sites. Better buy one fast because i bet they won`t be up long.I no longer care about copying someones bait since they steal our ideas.But that is me.I no longer make or have the beaver molds but wish i did.They work in the rivers around here and they are pretty pricey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask any law enforcement officer or court official they will tell you real quick ignorance of the law is no excuse

 

 

Clark County Nevada might have reason to argue with you.  In a case where they outlawed wearing sandals on motorcycles as a countty ordinance right before the Laughlin River Run there was no way for the thousands of motorcyclists about to descend on the southern tip of Nevada to know about it.  Never mind that wearing flip flops or sandals on a motorcycle isn't a great idea.  It doesn't matter.  The 9th District Court ruled that the ordinance was not "knowable" and they set a prescedent. 

 

This is not a new concept.  When the national 55 MPH speed limit law went into affect back in the 1970s it was not enforced (atleast in Arizona) until all the signs were up and it had been fully posted for 72 hours.  (maybe it was only 24hrs - It was 30 years ago afterall)  This allowed for anybody traveling on the highways to have adequate time to know that the speed limits had changed.  I remember the listening to the truckers talking about it on my Dad's CB all night long as they ran at the edge of legal until the last possible minute. 

 

In the situation listed in this thread, if you know enough to ask there is no way you can claim it was not knowable.  If fact just by the nature of knowing to ask first you have proven that you knew before hand. 

 

In order to be enforced a law must be knowable.  This falls back more on the older concepts of natural law and right and wrong based on Blackstone more than the knewer basis of law currently more in vogue based on prescedents and the concept that both the law and right and wrong should change with the times.  The thing is even under the current trend there is a prescedent.  Its kind of interesting that the "igonorance is no excuse" was more prevailant under the era when natural order of right and wrong was more the accepted norm for writing laws. 

 

So, if "somebody" who knew nothing of this situation bought the mold and made a few baits or even sold them they would have no liability until after they were brought up to speed.  They would also have the potential to recover all losses from the seller incurred in good faith that they had purchased a legal product.  However, they might find themselves with a hefty legal bill in order to get justice.  Unfortunately, justice (particularly in civil matters) often goes to the person with the most money.  And remember you are not protected by the 5th amendment in a civil matter.  You can be forced to testify against yourself or risk charges of perjury (lying) or contempt (refusing to answer in court).  Your are not however required to answer outside of court or provide any information not ordered by a court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I am not a lawyer, and I have never practiced law in any jurisdiction. If you feel you may have need of legal assistance always contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction. While the law does allow you to do your own research, and defend yourself some judges will punish you for it. In addition you may find that public law libraries require a certain amount of determination for a member of the general public to actually gain access to.

Edited by Bob La Londe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a county ordinance about sandals and flip flops pertain to federal patent laws? 

 

Just because a law is not enforced does not make it legal.  Breaking the law is breaking the law. 

 

Contact your local magistrate and ask them if you don't know about a law are you still breaking the law or not.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse has as much to do with the law today as in times past.  Go to a state that you have no idea of what their hunting seasons are and start hunting.  If it's not hunting season, whether you know it or not you will still be arrested for poaching.  Also the same way with fishing laws.  And even nowadays people commonly receive citations and are prosecuted for these exact things.  What about the person who is innocently sitting in a car and their friend goes in and robs a store and they have no knowledge of what the friend is doing, they still get jail time.  Take me for example, do you think I would have spent $12,000 on molds if I had any idea I was infringing on a patent?  But yet I am guilty of patent infringment and cannot produce product off of my molds.  I had no knowledge of this, but I'm still guilty and it's still my responsibility to have found out whether or not I was infringing.  Therefore, I'm still bound by the law to abide by the cease and desist or risk further legal action.  And I had no knowledge whatsoever of the law.  These are just examples. 

 

Again, if it's against the law, it's against the law.  And to advise anyone otherwise, is very irresponsible. 

 

I am saying these things because I did contact an attorney.  A couple of them as a matter of fact.  And letters were even sent back and forth from each attorney.  And if it would have went to court, I would have had to have paid money for all the times that I did not know I was breaking the law.  This is what the patent attorney explained to me. 

 

Bottom line is, if the mold is illegal then the product from the mold is illegal.  I was also assured of this by the patent attorney.  And yes I did ask the question, "even though I didn't know it?"  and his answer was to me, "it doesn't matter, infringment is infringment." 

 

I myself would never suggest to anyone, oh you can do it until you get caught.  They can't do anything to you.  This is just irresponsible and not very good advice.  I personally don't want to see anyone get in trouble or take a chance of getting in trouble.  And if I hadn't talked to an attorney and I wasn't sure of these facts, then by all means I would not post it and then say check with an attorney. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a legal precedent that a law must be "knowable".   This was a legal ruling by a federal court.  Your attempt to demean the value of the federal court ruling by taking it back to the the county level is meaningless. 

 

Its not about "sandals".  Its about a known researchable legal precedent. 

 

It is general knowledge that there are hunting  seasons, and license requirements.  It is indefensibly knowable, and therefore your responsibility to learn them.  Your analogy is totally inapplicable. 

 

I admit that it is a bit of a stretch from knowing about a law as opposed to knowing about an application of the law in this circumstance.  However, its not a stretch to go from there is know way for a group to have any reasonable way to know about a new law, and there is no reasonable way for somebody not actively and majorly involved in an industry to know somebody else is selling a product to the general public that may infringe on a patent.  One they are publicly advertising. 

 

I take specific exception to your inference that I was advising anybody to violate a patent.  I definitely did not do that, and in fact pointed out specifically that anybody seeking to find out could not in anyway use even the most obscure defense as obviously based on the very action of asking they have made it clear that they could reasonably take the action to know, and were aware of the need to know. 

 

And finally...  "How much did Zoom make you pay?"  They brought you up to speed, made you aware of the infringement, and forced you to pay exactly how much?   Or did you just agree not to infringe on their patent and that was the end of it? 

 

Obviously its a stupid idea to infringe on a current patent, but nothing is ever that simple. 

 

However my point was that the, "ignorance is no excuse," blanket knee jerk comment often heard  is not a blanket absolute rule of law in every possible circumstance.   I then backed it up with examples.  

Edited by Bob La Londe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the question was about a patent infringment is it not the responsibility of a moldmaker to have general knowledge, just like the hunting?  Is a patent # on a package and listed on a website not a reasonable way to know that you are infringing?  I did not say that you were suggesting for someone to violate the patent.  But you were suggesting that by not knowing that the product is patented, that no legal action could be taken, which is a false statement.  As far as how much Zoom made me pay, all of my legal fees and remember I had no knowledge of this and I also had no way of knowing whether or not the information Zoom gave me was correct.  You're basically trying to argue with me but what you're really trying to say is what the patent attorney told me is wrong.  Contact any federal law enforcement agency and run your theory by them and you will be told whether you know the law or not, if you break it, you can be prosecuted.  It's very simple, if you infringe on a patent, you're breaking the law.  How is that not simple?  And again, pertaining to federal patent laws, and after I have talked to a patent attorney, who explained to me in a situation such as the question that was asked in the beginning, that ignorance of a patent law is no excuse.  I was referring to no other law but patent laws.  The knee jerk comments were made when someone just decides to argue for the sake of arguing, who says they are not a lawyer, and to always contact a lawyer, and then the person that did contact a lawyer posts what they were told by the lawyer, and then you tell them that the information I received does not pertain to the subject.  Go back and quote where I was talking about anything other than patent infringment, besides the examples that I gave, when you alone decided that my comment pertained to every law in existence, which it did not.  My comment pertained to the question that was asked at the beginning of this thread.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I don't spend my time just looking for an argument.  I try to be responsible enough to shoot people the facts to keep someone from winding up in the situation that I found myself in.  After all, I was as innocent as the guy that was thinking about purchasing the mold.  I tried to help someone to avoid a costly situation that I found myself in.  In what way did you help answer the gentleman's question, or did you just spend your time scrutinizing my comments?  After all, I am the one that paid the patent attorneys for the information. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a situation where we are just not going to agree.  I'm not picking an argument.  I am taking exception to the, "Ignorance is no excuse," being used like an absolute.  And I suspect I can find a majority of federal judges in the 9th District Court who would agree since they voted that way. 

 

I still think that somebody who in all innocence and no reasonable way to know otherwise who purchased a commercial mold already in production from a commercial mold maker and produced baits from it would have a valid defense against an infringement perpetrated by the mold maker.  Only up until the point where they had any awareness (ANY) that there might be a problem.  The liability would be upon the mold maker who designed and sold the mold.  The totally unaware buyer would also have recourse upon the seller and designer.  I am not talking about an established bait maker like yourself or an active and aware small bait maker like me.  We would have no excuse at all.  I am talking about John Doe the casual angler who just happens to see the mold on a website and discovers he can make his own baits. 

 

This is not the same as your case.  You commissioned the mold to be custom made at your direction.  You were the responsible party.  It cost you money, and you had legal fees, but in the end you agreed not to infringe and the matter ended as far as Zoom was concerned.  I am not saying your patent attorney was wrong.  I am saying that your case was different. 

 

This sort of argument is exactly what makes Zoom and RI very happy.  Not only does it protect their intellectual property, but it also scares and intimidates people from using other products or competing with them with different products taht fill the same market niche.  For them this is a multiple benefit, and big companies use exactly this type of tactic all the time.  I have seen it in the communication industry as well.  Even those people making their own baits not for resale might be intimidated away and reduce their competition for the available dollars by a smidgeon.

 

I'll also reiterate the other points. 

 

*** "Ignorance is no excuse," is not an absolute rule of law.  I will admit its a good guideline, but most people who plead ignorance are not completely unaware in all reality.  Also, we have been told our whole lives that ignorance is no excuse.  Its only been a decade since we got a legal precedent that it may not be used to deliberately perpetrate a miscarriage of justice or for an immoral revenue grab. 

 

*** If you think there "might" be a problem of "any" kind no matter how obscure you have no defense at all if you don't investigate further and find out for sure.  You did know in this case.  If you thought about it for a tenth of a second one time you were aware there might be a problem.  (Editorial use of "you."  Not you personally Mike.  I have no way of knowing what you did or didn't know.) 

 

I hate to muddy the water, but to those who discussed receiving stolen property, or being an unwitting accomplice to a robbery or theft.  Pawn brokers receive stolen property all the time and are not charged with a crime.  They have knowledge of the law as part of their business, and they are careful to not implicate themselves with knowledge of a crime.  If they are aware and if they are not criminals themselves, then they don't make the purchase.  I know this for a fact.  I have retrieved stolen property from a pawn broker before with full knowledge of the police.  The pawn broker was not charged, and they should not have been.  They had no knowledge of the crime. 

 

The unwitting accomplice is usually an "accomplice after the fact" anyway...  I am only aware of a couple instances of this extreme example brought up and in each cases where the driver was charged they assisted in evading police, shared in the spoils, or in some jurisdictions simply failed to report the crime after they were made aware after the fact.  Heck, just running from police is a crime in most jurisdictions.  Are there cases of a miscarriage of justice sometimes?  Absolutely, but in this day and age they are pretty rare.  Usually they are the fault of over ambitious prosecutors, and lazy or not fully competent defense attorneys. 

 

Lastly, Mike.  Your comments about patent numbers on a bag or other information available does not invalidate my point.  It supports it.  I have said over and over that if there is reasonable way to know or if you have any inkling of awareness of a need to know then you are responsible to know.  Its why they put patent numbers on the bag.  Don't you think if they could keep a patent secret and then make money by suing people for infringement that some attorney wouldn't already be doing that, and actively recommending it.  (Actually there have been examples of that sort of thing with both patent and copyright, but the actions of unscrupulous attorneys doesn't support either of our arguments.  ADA compliance has also been used to intimidate money out of small businesses by unscrupulous attorneys, and I am sure many other things.)

 

I think I'll have to let you have the last word on this discussion though.  The distinction is very small, and I think those who will see it already have no matter what else we may have to say.  Besides as we both know.  Whats right or what is determined to be legal is not always based exactly on the law, but on who has the most money to defend their interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to kick up a post from the grave, but I've been reading all these and maybe this is a stupid question, but as long as there is not patent on a bait, ie. on their website, or packaging, are you ok to make a POP mold and pour them for your own use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a patent...Technically...no....but it's unlikely they would sue you for the lost revenue from the baits you would have purchased from them.

 

If you sell them...then they can go after you for 3X the lost revenue, and possibly any damage you have done to their brand or reputation.

 

If there is no Design (how it looks) or Utility (how it works) Patent...your safe...assuming that their isn't a "patent pending" that you don't know about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...
Top