2tonne

I am a relative newcomer to flying, with only 19 hours in a J160, so keep this in mind when considering my comments. I seemed to encounter a lot of bumpy days early on (started flying during summer) and was getting pushed around a lot on final. I was constantly fighting to keep the nose lined-up with the centreline using aileron (and attempting to coordinate it with rudder). My approaches were pretty ugly, with the nose all over the place. My instructor, however, always had a nice steady approach in the same conditions. He instructed me to use gentle pressure on the rudder once lined-up on final, instead of using aileron. In a crosswind, a wing was put down into wind with some opposite rudder to track the centreline, although not necessarily with the nose lined up on the centreline. It took a little while to stop instinctively using aileron, but once I started using rudder my approaches were much straighter and was no longer fighting to keep the nose in one place.

Thanks for the recommendations, sounds as though there are two good options to choose from. I will check them both out. A couple of other factors will come into consideration, and one of those will be where I end up living in Brisbane (north or south). Given that I am comfortable with the Jabiru, that is a plus for Pathfinder, but I am not sure whether flying from a Class D is a positive or negative. While almost all of my flying has been out of Lilydale (non-controlled airspace), I have had a couple of flights out of Essendon (Class C), and to be honest I think I prefer to fly from a non-towered aerodrome. Guess I would get used to the Class D procedures pretty quickly though.

Hi all, I have been having lessons at Lilydale and have got to the stage of completing my first solo in a Jabiru J160. There is a reasonable chance that I will be moving from Melbourne to Brisbane for work early next year and was wondering what flying schools there are for Rec certificate training. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks, Tony

And the fun continues...first solo today! Turned up at the airfield a little early so that I could sit the pre-solo exam. About 3 minutes later the exam was finished and I waited for my instructor. After four circuits with a normal landing, full-flap landing, glide approach and flapless landing we made a full stop. Then, it was a bit of a break before heading up with the CFI for a pre-solo check ride. The CFI was silent for almost the entire flight, which was a little disconcerting, but made good practice for the silence of the solo. After three landings with the CFI, it was off for the solo circuit. Just as I was taxying for the runway, it started to get a little busy. There was a thumping yellow Antonov doing circuits, a Jabiru in front of me and two pipers behind. After having a good look down finals, I called entering and rolling. A second of two later I heard a call for late final! What the.. looked out to the side and saw a helicopter on final for the grassed helicopter landing area a couple of hundred metres away, so no conflict with my runway. Got airborne in no time and seemed to be on final just a few moments later. Managed a semi-decent landing and pulled up out the front of the flight school grinning like an idiot. What a buzz! Still haven't come down from it yet.

Hi Bex, obviously I am not a Chinese patent attorney, I have just been visiting and speaking with quite a lot of them over the last three years about issues with IP enforcement in China. I am a firm believer in the value of protecting your IP in China using the patent and TM systems, both judicial and administrative where possible. As China's IP laws and practice develop and the judges become more experienced in patent cases, the outcomes will continue to become more consistent (and with all due respect, judges with limited understanding of technology and patents is by no means limited to China!). Already, foreign companies are having many successes before the Chinese courts and the Chinese government is drafting further revisions to the Patent law following submissions made by the US government, amongst others. These revisions are designed in part to address some of the issues, real or perceived, around utility patents and to strengthen patent enforcement, particularly administrative enforcement. So, believe me, I am not knocking Chinese patent law at all - considering that the law was only drafted circa 1985, they have achieved an incredible amount in that time. Also, as the Chinese economy moves away from cheap manufacturer to an innovation based economy, the Chinese government knows that a strong and reliable IP system is critical. I always advise my clients that if China is an important market or manufacturer, then file patent applications there if you can. I didn't mean to offend, just offering my comments based on the opinions of others. I will happily take you up on the offer to visit and learn how things really work - always keen to be set straight:wave: Cheers, 2tonne

Hi Bex, you are right that if a local Chinese patentee tried to cover your product you would likely prevail in the end. However, it can still take some time and effort to knock out the Chinese utility patent. Last year I watched a presentation by an in-house lawyer from Clorox who had this happen to them. Story is that Clorox had marketed a product outside of China from about 2002. This product was patented in the US and elsewhere, but not China. In 2008, they entered this product into the Chinese market and received a letter of demand for a yearly licence fee of US$13,000 from the Chinese owner of the utility model patent. Knowing that the patent would have to be examined by the Patent Office before it could be enforced in Court, Clorox pre-emptively sought to invalidate the utility patent and use this action to convince the Chinese patentee to negotiate. Although Clorox had the earlier patents, there were some extra features the Chinese patentee had included in his patent that were in the product, but not specifically mentioned in Clorox's own patents. So not only would it cost thousands to translate them into Chinese, there was no guarantee they would knock out the Chinese utility patent with them. So, Clorox had to rely on printed copies of advertisements from before 2008, which apparently were hard to find because most physical copies of ads had been destroyed. They couldn't rely on electronic evidence (eg a DVD of a tv commercial) because they would had to have had someone from the ad agency front up in China and give testimony - funnily enough no one was keen to do this. It took them 6 months to get enough evidence to go to a preliminary hearing. The preliminary opinion they got at the hearing sounded like Clorox might succeed, but given it was not certain they accepted an offer from the Chinese patentee to a royalty-free license to the patent covering their own product. Took 17 months and cost around US$20,000 to get to that point - long story, but shows that it can be problematic dealing with utility patents in China. And, if the utility patent had been upheld as valid and was used to threaten Clorox with infringement, there is no guarantee the matter would be end up being heard in Court. This is because Chinese judges have discretion on whether or not to hear any given case. It's my understanding that it is not uncommon for Chinese judges to force negotiations between parties in order to achieve a "win-win" situation in which both sides would be expected to compromise. This apparently avoids the courts having to issue decisions that might be viewed as unpopular with the locals. The suggestion from the Clorox lawyer was to publish your product in print in China (at the right time so as not to prejudice your own IP) and file a utility patent application as well (or standard patent application if warranted). Phew, that's a long post...but I have had a few trips to China learning about IP there and it is certainly an interesting place! Cheers, 2tonne

Innovation patents One thing I didn't mention in my post on the patenting process was the Australian Innovation patent. This might be of interest to some as it is a relatively cost effective and quick way in which to obtain IP rights over lower-level innovations that wouldn't necessarily pass the inventiveness threshold for a 'standard' patent, or for which a shorter 8 year term would be sufficient. The main differences between an innovation patent and a standard AU patent are: an innovation patent has a shorter term of 8 years (compared to 20 years for a standard patent) an innovation patent can be granted without any examination (but would have to be examined ("certified") if you wanted to enforce it in Court) is subject to a lower patentability threshold of having an "innovative step" instead of an "inventive step". Basically, there needs to be some new feature that makes "a substantial contribution to the working of the invention", even if that feature would have been obvious to someone working in that field (cf. a standard patent where the new inventive feature must not have been obvious) What these differences mean is that it can be relatively quick and cheap to obtain a granted innovation patent in Australia. It may even be possible to obtain a granted and certified patent for less than $10,000. Some other countries (e.g., Germany and China) have a similar patent referred to as a utility model patent. Also, because the innovative threshold is low, it can be much more difficult for someone to invalidate your innovation patent. One thing that is the same for both types of patents are the remedies available when a Court finds the patent has been infringed (e.g., injunction, account of profits, damages). Hence, if you have an invention you want to protect in Australia (and possibly a limited number of other countries), and an 8 year term would be sufficient, the innovation patent may be a good option to consider. A note on China: - There have been stories over the last few years of foreign companies entering China to manufacture or sell a product only to find themselves blocked by an entrepreneurial local who has a Chinese utility patent in place for the foreign company's product (because they can get the utility patent quickly and cheaply). Usually, the Chinese individual or business that owns the utility patent will demand some kind of 'royalty' so that you can manufacture or sell your own product. This can of course result in unforseen delays and costs because the foreign company will have to go through mediation/ligitation to have the matter resolved (they hope in their favour). So, if considering selling or manufacturing in China, you may want to consider filing one or more Chinese utility (and/or standard) patents at an early stage to block the local Chinese entrepeneurs. You would, of course, want to get professional advice on this. Designs and TM information to come.

For those who are interested, I have put together some brief information with expected timing and costs of filing patent applications. The first document (Steps in the Patenting Process) is a very simple rundown of expected costs for taking the "usual" approach of filing a provisional patent application and then following up with an International PCT application (which reserves the right to file in any of the PCT contracting states; listed here http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html), and then national/regional phase applications. I shamelessly pinched this summary from a colleague of mine. One of the main benefits of filing a PCT application is that it delays the costs of having to file patent applications in individual countries/regions by 18 months. The next document (AU Provisional and PCT International application) is a timeline that I put together with a little more information about the same AU prov and PCT filing process. As an alternative to the PCT route, it is possible to file an application in Australia and then one or more "Convention" applications overseas (possible in most countries that would be of interest) within 12 months. This can be useful if you want to file only in a small number of countries (around 1-3) outside of Australia, although in my experience this option is not used very often. The final document (AU provisional and Complete Application) outlines the expected costs and timing for filing a provisional patent application followed by a complete Australian patent application. This approach would be taken if you want protection only in Australia. Although the steps after filing the Australian complete application are specific to Australia, they give an an indication of the sorts of steps that would take place during examination of a patent application in other countries (with each having their own particular procedures). I am also putting together some brief information on design registration (good for protecting shape and configuration of an article) and registration of trade marks and will post these soon. Any questions, let me know. Steps in the Patenting Process.pdf AU provisional and PCT International application.pdf AU provisional and Complete Application.pdf Steps in the Patenting Process.pdf AU provisional and PCT International application.pdf AU provisional and Complete Application.pdf Steps in the Patenting Process.pdf AU provisional and PCT International application.pdf AU provisional and Complete Application.pdf

You're welcome!

Hi HITC, good questions and you clearly have an understanding of TMs and the registration process. I have paraphrased your questions below and provide some very general responses. 1. Can my TM registration in one class prevent someone else from registering it in another Class of goods/services? The answer is yes, your TM registration in one class could block someone else from registering the same TM in other classes of goods/services, but only if they are similar goods or closely related services. This will always depend on the facts in each case, and determining whether goods are similar will take into account the nature of the goods, the intended use of the goods and the usual trade channels. An example of similar goods may be aircraft engines (in Class 7) and aircraft (in Class 12). Closely related goods and services could be, for example, aircraft (goods in Class 12 – e.g., Cessna is registered in Class 12) and aviation flight schools (services in Class 41). In this case, a flight school trying to register "Cessna" in class 41 would likely fail due to the Class 12 registration. In the example you give, a company manufacturing luxury cars has a TM registered in one class, and another company is providing upmarket car hire services. In this case, it could probably be argued that the goods (luxury cars) and services (luxury car hire) may be related. Nevertheless, it would always depend on the facts in each situation. 2. Can I stop someone from using (infringing) my TM on goods outside the Class in which the TM is registered? Yes, similar to blocking registration of someone else’s TM, you could sue someone for infringement on the basis that they are using the same (or deceptively similar) TM on similar goods or closely related goods and services, even though those goods and services are not in the Class in which your TM is registered. There is another provision for “well known” trade marks, but that is rarely used. In that case, if your TM was “well known” (ie famous) in Australia, then you could also sue someone for using your TM in relation to any goods or services. However, it is difficult to demonstrate that a brand is “well known” in Australia – think of TMs like QANTAS, Coca-Cola and Nike as good examples that a court might consider well known TMs. 3. If I filed my TM in classes of goods/services where I do not intend to use it, can it be removed from the TM register? Yes, one ground for removal of a TM from the register is that there was never an intention to use it (e.g., the TM application was filed to block others, but with no intention to use on those goods/services for which it was registered). Also, if the TM is not used on certain goods and services for at least 3 years, someone could seek to cancel that part of the TM registration. Nevertheless, the TM registration may remain valid for the class of goods/services in which the TM is actually used. 4. Can I register my TM as a defensive mark? No. Only very famous marks can be registered as a defensive TM registration in Australia. Again, think along the lines of QANTAS, Coca-Cola, Nike - something that pretty much everybody in Australia would recognise instantly. In a nutshell, · Best to only seek registration of a TM for goods/services that you intend to use the mark on. · TM registration in one Class may prevent others from registering the TM on similar goods or closely related services in other TM Classes, and you could take action to try to stop them using the TM · No intention to use / non-use can result in cancellation of a TM (at least in part) · Defensive trade mark registrations available only to very famous trade marks I hope these comments are helpful, but if you need a more detailed answer I would have to defer to a colleague of mine who has a much better understanding of TM law and practice. Cheers, Tony

HITC, that's some homework you have given me! Actually, would be happy to put together a few timelines with basic procedures and estimates of costs. Having had a look online, there doesn't seem to be anything readily available that achieves the desired result of putting it all together in an an easy to digest format. Due respect to IP Australia, but even on their website you have to click through a lot of pages to get the information. I hope you don't mind that it will take me a few days to get all this together, but I think it will be a worthwhile exercise even for me. Regarding your TMs question, there is a very specialised type of trade mark in Australia called a Defensive Trade Mark, but this is applicable only to very famous brands, e.g. Coca Cola, Nike, who can file one defensive application and cover all classes. It seems clear from your question though that you are not referring to this particular type of trade mark. To answer your question: as a general rule, if you are using or intending to use your trade mark soon, then it would be desirable to file an application for your trade mark for the goods/classes you intend to use it on. Reason for this if someone else gets there own very similar or identical trade mark application accepted by IP Australia, it can be a difficult and expensive process to "oppose" it or have it removed from the TM register. If you have already filed your own application, then this should be found by a trade mark examiner and block the other trade mark from being allowed by the Examiner. On the other hand, if you are not using it, then probably less incentive to file your own speculative application because if you don't use it within a few years from registration it may be open to cancellation for "non-use". This is a very simplistic answer. (note usual disclaimers about this not constituting legal advice, etc etc)

Yep, certainly is an expensive process. A provisional application could set you back around $5-$7K, a complete international application could cost around 10-15k, and entering the 'national phase' (filing applications in individual countries/regions) could cost from 10-50k or more depending on how many countries you file in and the number of translations needed. For sole inventors/small companies I usually recommend finding a commercial partner to wear the costs of entering the national phase. And of course, the costs of prosecuting (having the application examined) and maintaining (paying renewal fees) for patent applications can be significant and continue for many years.

The term of a patent is, in most cases, 20 years from the filing of a complete patent application, although they often lapse earlier if the patentee decides not to pay 'renewal' fees. Protection and enforcement is also on a country by country basis, there is no one patent that covers the whole world (although there is a PCT "international application" system - confusing I know). There would also be many aspects of aircraft that are not going to be patentable. For example, just the shape or design of an aircraft would ulikely be patentable unless it had some new and inventive (non-obvious) functional feature. Nevertheless, it may be possible to cover shapes or design features using design registration instead. Design registration gives a shorter period of protection of up to 10 years. Copyright could also come into play in relation to the aircraft plans, but it starts to get complicated there... I'm don't know what IP would have been protected around the use of ipad apps for navigation, it's not an area I am familiar with. Sometimes the delay in bringing software into Australia may be due to commercial negotiations and proprietary licences without any patents in place - similar in a way to the reasons we get restricted content on iTunes and apple TV in Australia compared to the US, for example.

Hi Col, software developers can rely on both copyright and patent protection. Copyright is inherent in the code once it is created and protection lasts a long time - life of the author plus 75 years. However, it only protects copying of the code itself (or substantial parts of it) and doesn't necessarily cover the functionality of the software. Patent protection is shorter at 20 years from the time a complete patent application is filed, but can be much broader in scope and can protect functionality with no need to describe any code. That is why patent protection can be difficult for other software developers to get around. One well known software patent is the Amazon "1-click" patent (US 5,960,411), which has also been referred to a "business method" patent. It relates to a "method and system for placing an order to purchase an item via the Internet". There is no description of any code in this patent and it defines the invention using very simple block diagrams representing each step of data manipulation. This patent was challenged in the US and some of the original broad claims were found invalid, however it is still in force in the US with some narrower claims. And just as an example of a patent claim, here is claim 1 of that US patent. 1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising: under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item; and in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system; under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system, receiving the request; retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.

Hi dodo, an interesting topic...and can certainly get heated answers either way with this one. It depends a lot on your viewpoint, innovators obviously like protection. The need to "get-around" or avoid patents is one commonly cited driver of innovation, as is the desire to obtain a market advantage. Nevertheless, many companies would prefer open competition and to be able to borrow their competitors ideas (pretty common in certain regions of the world). You also find that some fields of technology generate strong opinions, for example there is a very strong anti-patent movement amongst software developers and also in relation to the patenting of isolated human genes.

Hi all, I have noticed that there are a few innovative types amongst members of this site. I have also seen the odd discussion of intellectual property issues, e.g., copying plans or protecting new engines, devices etc, but see that there is also sometimes misunderstanding about what can and cannot be protected with different types of IP. As a patent attorney by day, and pilot in training on the weekends, I am happy to start this thread as a means for people to ask about and discuss general IP questions, in particular regarding patents, but also registered designs and trademarks. But, remember that publicly disclosing the details of your invention will make it unpatentable, so no writing anything specific about your latest creations in this thread! Nevertheless, feel free to throw some general questions at me about the IP systems in Australia and abroad, steps involved, expected costs, timeframes...you name it I am happy to have a go at explaining it (all due care and no responsibility of course). Cheers, 2tonne

well, CANT is a word, but I can't recall ever using it...and I definitely can't recall what it means...

Hi Matty, forgot to mention, my instructor is Bob. Given your location, I guess you may know him.

Since that lesson with the ripper crosswind landing, I seemed to have gone backwards a little. Last lesson was circuits with a perfect 5 knot headwind on final. Circuits were very tidy but I made some of the most ordinary landings. Didn't bounce it, but my instructor described them as "arriving" on the runway. I hope it was just an off day. As for the use of rudder to keep wings level approaching stall, my understanding was that a heavy aileron input on a wing with a high angle of attack could make it stall before the other wing and drop quickly. Hence, just rudder to keep wings level. Nothing during the stall and then aileron and rudder as normal once recovered. Mind you, I have heard various different theories on effects of rudder and aileron close to the stall so could easily have mixed that up with my instructors comments.

DJP referred to the IP Australia website, and I agree there could be some IP issues around providing a copy of the plans to another person. I am no expert but both copyright and registered designs could potentially be relevant. My limited understanding is that copyright automatically resides in the plans at the time they are created by the designer. So, typically when the designer sells their plans they grant a limited licence to exempt the purchaser from copyright infringement when they use the plans to build an aircraft. But, that license would not (usually) extend to copying or distributing the plans - hence, shouldn't copy and distribute them. It does get complicated though, because there is a registered designs/copyright overlap in Australia (very, very complicated). The d/c overlap in a nutshell is this - if more than 50 articles (ie aircraft) are produced using the plans, then copyright protection may no longer be available on the basis that it could have been protected as a registered design (which is considered more appropriate for "industrially produced" articles). So, short answer would be - probably best not to copy the plans without consent of the designer. Probably also fair that the designer get some reward for their hard work also. Now, please do not hold me to anything I have just written as I am not a lawyer.

Thanks! Now I just have to develop some consistency with my landings, then maybe I can start thinking about first solo...

Took-off from Lilydale at 4:30 pm for a flying lesson in a very grim looking sky today. Wind was 10 knots straight down runway 36 and we headed to the training area to practise stalls for my first time. Found the Jabiru 160 to be pretty docile in the stall, although I have to remember to use rudder to keep wings level going into the stall rather than aileron! Would hate to put it into a spin or end up inverted. Some light rain and reduced visibility in a darkening sky had us head back to the airfield around 5:10 pm. Noticed a crosswind on the downwind leg for 36 but didn't appreciate just how strong it was. Had the aircraft crabbing at a significant angle to the runway but nailed the approach on final, the flare with rudder to align with the runway and the landing. Checked the windsock and it was looking around 15 knots all crosswind - confirmed this with weather app on iPhone on the ground which showed the wind as 14 knots direct from the west. Apologies if this is a boring post, but it was the first real crosswind landing that I have done well and am so stoked that I just had to share it:cheezy grin: Now have 8.4 hrs in the log book.

From the information in the report, it would seem that the RFDS were justified in terminating the pilot's employment as his behaviours made him unsafe. However, I also feel for the guy. As a young fella I believed I was indestructible and while studying a science degree full-time I also worked night shifts and put in a few all-nighters of the partying variety as well. At one stage I was loosing the plot due to lack of regular sleep but couldn't see it at the the time. Luckily a thumping chest infection with pneumonia knocked me off my feet for a while, so I got a chance to get plenty of rest. Only after a few months had passed could I look back and see the cause and effect of poor lifestyle and deterioting health. If the pilot was suffering from regular sleep deprivation and the anxiety etc that can accompany it, it is quite likely his decision making was significantly impaired. Really needed someone else to tap him on the shoulder and say he was unfit to fly before he got to this point. Who should do this and how would it be detected? I don't know.

In my experience, the best way to get things reported accurately is to put the points you won't made in an email to the journalist. They are very proficient with 'copy and paste' - saves thinking and effort on their behalf.

Sunfish, I am very new to the world of aviation. And, before starting my flying lessons, I looked closely at the ATSB records to try to gauge how safe flying is. Going back through the records over the years it readily became apparent that many fatal GA accidents were the result of poor pilot behaviours and risk taking. So, I can't see that the "shallow end of the gene pool" as you put it is entirely restricted to RA. Cheers, Tony