Spyker launch arbitration

[aryan]

But that opens up a number of questions. What is the official corporate organization of Honda's F1 effort? What if Honda F1 Racing Ltd. of the UK had sold the design of the RA106 to Honda Development of Tochigi, Japan, which then proceeded to produce chassis for Super Aguri? Would those chassis be sufficiently independent (in the corporate sense ) to be legal? It is enough to make my poor little head hurt.
...
ClarkFan

This is my general understanding of coroprate IP law, I have no insight knowledge of the Concord agreement.

Intellectual property (design rights here) can only have one owner at a time, its owner has to be unique and identifiable. Honda could have very well sold their IP rights of their design to Super Aguri, and SA can then use that and create a modified version of the chassis (called a derivative work in copyright terms) based on the design they now own.

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car (and to be on the safe side, fire all their design team and hire a bunch of people with no knowledge and access to the previous car, or to create a sandbox as it is known in the industry) and design a new car from scratch. Their new car would then be called "orignal work". Otherwise, if they had used any of the IP which they had sold to SA, then their own car would become a derivate work of that design.

As it stands, Honda has either sold the IP rights of the previous car to SA, in which case Honda's car is a derivative work and thus Honda does not own its full IP rights and is in violation of the Concord agreement; or Honda hasn't sold the IP rights to SA and has just licensed the rights to SA (which I believe is the case) in which case, SA doesn't hold all the IP rights to their car and they are in violation of the agreement.

Your argument that what if SA has vastly changed the design, still doesn't hold ground in a court. As it stands, copyright law goes into extreme details on how to differentiate between an original work and a derivative one, and it would be very easy for any lawyer to argue that SA's car is a derivative work of Honda's last year car. To be called original, the new work should have made radical changes, to be point that the the original work can not be represented in the new work, and that's too hard to argue for a car which is based on last year's car.

[ioan]

This is my general understanding of coroprate IP law, I have no insight knowledge of the Concord agreement.

Intellectual property (design rights here) can only have one owner at a time, its owner has to be unique and identifiable. Honda could have very well sold their IP rights of their design to Super Aguri, and SA can then use that and create a modified version of the chassis (called a derivative work in copyright terms) based on the design they now own.

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car (and to be on the safe side, fire all their design team and hire a bunch of people with no knowledge and access to the previous car, or to create a sandbox as it is known in the industry) and design a new car from scratch. Their new car would then be called "orignal work". Otherwise, if they had used any of the IP which they had sold to SA, then their own car would become a derivate work of that design.

As it stands, Honda has either sold the IP rights of the previous car to SA, in which case Honda's car is a derivative work and thus Honda does not own its full IP rights and is in violation of the Concord agreement; or Honda hasn't sold the IP rights to SA and has just licensed the rights to SA (which I believe is the case) in which case, SA doesn't hold all the IP rights to their car and they are in violation of the agreement.

Your argument that what if SA has vastly changed the design, still doesn't hold ground in a court. As it stands, copyright law goes into extreme details on how to differentiate between an original work and a derivative one, and it would be very easy for any lawyer to argue that SA's car is a derivative work of Honda's last year car. To be called original, the new work should have made radical changes, to be point that the the original work can not be represented in the new work, and that's too hard to argue for a car which is based on last year's car.

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.

[ClarkFan]

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car ....

Looking at the performance to date of the RA107, perhaps they did.......

ClarkFan

[aryan]

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.

They should have if basic laws of nature were patentable and copyritghable.

As it is, the founding fathers of the US (who were the first to formulate the notion of copyright in their constitution) realised that copyright or in its broader sense Inettelectual Property as we call it today, should only enhance community knowledge and should not hinder innovation, and therefore IP has limitations. One of those limitations is that it should expire and fall into public domain (at some time). The other limitation is that basic laws of nature (laws of physics, mathematical formulae etc.) are not covered by IP laws and are in public domain.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I have worked in a law firm.

[ioan]

They should have if basic laws of nature were patentable and copyritghable.

Engineering knowledge that team members might have isn't patented either. Or else Newey should have got a brain wash before leaving McLaren.

[aryan]

Engineering knowledge that team members might have isn't patented either. Or else Newey should have got a brain wash before leaving McLaren.

You are most certainly right, and that is exactly why many companies put clauses in their strategic employee's agreements in effect barring them from joining a competitor until X months/years has passed from their current employment.

[ioan]

You are most certainly right, and that is exactly why many companies put clauses in their strategic employee's agreements in effect barring them from joining a competitor until X months/years has passed from their current employment.

Exactly. But however they will use the acquired knowledge after in the next team, otherwise they would be useless.

[Valve Bounce]

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.

Perfectly correct: The second law of physics clearly states : what goes up must come down.

[aryan]

Exactly. But however they will use the acquired knowledge after in the next team, otherwise they would be useless.

Of course they will, and that's perfrectly fine if they are not looking at some of the design sheets they brought from their previous employer.

Ideas are not patentable, implementations of those ideas are.