|
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
It has been noted writer David Gerrold might have accidentally lifted the Tribbles (from Star Trek's "The Trouble with Tribbles") from the flatcats of Robert Heinlein's The Rolling Stones. Heinlein read the script, and sent a note back saying "I felt the analogy to my flat cats was mild enough to be of no importance," and that the idea wasn't really original with him in any case. ~Science Fiction's Greatest Stolen Ideas by Charlie Jane Anders
I believe David Gerrold insisted his tribbles were an original idea, he just happened to have the same idea as Heilein. Such is the case with a magic prop I purchased about 6 months ago. I never completely learned to use before it broke into pieces and was irreparable. It was not very well made or even practical to use, but that's perfectly alright. I should have done more research before I purchased it (it had documented issues), but there was something familiar about this thing I just could not put my finger on it. Move forward in time about 3 months later and I am going through my storage rental and come across a box of old concert tickets and in the same box was a prop I had made for myself back around 1978, some of the mechanics between mine and the one I purchased were pretty much the same, but other aspects were not. I also never used mine because it was not silent enough and that was mostly because of the materials I had to work with back then. I brought it home and began retooling it and after about a week and $200 later. I had a working utility, and it is far superior whats being sold today. The basis for both is identical, but the basis for both is nothing new, and the more I think about it neither is too terribly original. I consider mine a utility where as the one being sold is being marketed as a magic trick. The question I have is, I'd like to share what I have done, but at the same time. I can't prove I made this thing in 1978. I have thought about sending one to manufacturer of the current prop, but mine is a totally different design and the functional mechanics although similar are not the same either. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and introduce it as an enhanced version of the existing prop and (what next, or what first - should I be considering?) I apologize for being so terribly ambiguous, but I hope its understood why. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
? You bought something and want to sell an improved version?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
I believe I have made an improved version of an existing prop. Its more of a hypothetical question in regards to selling it. I am perfectly content just using it for myself. My worries are that if I ever surface my version, show it to anyone - how do I preclude liability. My logical assertion is the one that is available is protected in some way and mine could be seen as an infringement. So its not so much a question about selling it as it is about introducing it without infringing on the existing prop. I suspect within magic circles this it not uncommon. The card case or Metamorphosis are good examples how many different variations and improvements have there been... (they may also be in the public domain) I guess the question boils down to what fundamentally differentiates an infringement from an improvement.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Is the original a trade secret or sold openly in the market? If not a trade secret - what liability?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
In the current incarnation my guess - trade secret. Since its being sold as an effect and not a utility. Previous incarnations. If you've worked with cards chances are you've assembled something like it at least once. I find it difficult to believe I am the only person to have made one of these before. If anything the functional part of the gimmick probably is considered a trade secret. Although I use different materials, the placement of mine is not the same, but not so dissimilar as to remove all doubt it is just a copy. Therefore I am in the process of reinventing the functional aspects of mine. I think If I can do that, I can make the argument the rest of the device is nothing new. I have parts ordered and expect to be working on it as early as this weekend. Also mine is built to last hundreds if not thousands of performances, where as the current version will only last through a handful of shows before it will start to disintegrate.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
? There is plenty of actual law for handling trade secrets. In magic prior art is ... arguable... especially if you don't have access to literature from the time when your base product was fist put onto the market. Unfortunately so many gaffs are engineered into products that claims upon more than the process as used are awkward.
How about just making your trick, using it for your audiences and when you see fit selling it to those few who could actually put the item to use? If you have something that works it will make a difference in your magic and eventually find its customers. Shhhh lots of goodies out there that simply don't get gossiped about.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
Thank you Jonathan. I tried to reinvent the wheel and was not a happy with the results. I am going to go back to the original design and do as you have advised.
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » The Trouble With Flatcats (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |