Adding Copyright info to an IGES file

[dmckee101]

The addition of copyright information to a IGES model file can sometimes be beneficial. I started doing this in fall of 2012 and have not had an issue with any of my vendors who use IGES files.
This method is for a single IGES file only. This could be a scripted process, but that's for you to do.

You need the IGES file to edit, and an ASCII text editor (Notepad++ for me).
The version of Notepad in Windows 8.1 seems to be fine too. The important point is that the editor doesn't add other characters, like a word processor might add.

There are several sections to an IGES file; Start, Global, Directory, Parameter, and Terminate.
Your information will go in the Start section.

To add company name and copyright information;
1. Open the file in a ASCII text editor. Notice each line is 80 characters long.
2. Look at line one. in position 73 is an upper-case S; this means it is part of the Start section. Positions 74 to 80 are reserved for sequence numbering. The first line has a 1 of course and typically is the only line in the Start section.
3. Insert a line after the last line. You can enter up to 72 characters of information.
4. Position 73 must be an upper case S.
5. Space over to position 80 and add the next number in the sequence (example: 2).
6. Save and now your IGES file has your copyright info inside.

 

[bigseb]

Great post, thanks! I'm sure many here will find this useful. However wouldn't it be a simple matter for someone to edit the text file and replace it with their own information? Still cool though.

 

[KMoffett]

Is there a place where you could also install an encrypted Copyright that could be decrypted as proof later if needed?

Ken

 

[dmckee101]

Yes of course it is a simple matter to edit it out. But this act, along with proper record keeping should bolster any legal action you might have to take in the future.

As to the point of encrypting, how about if an extra line was added (#3) that had the copyright information encrypted? Myself, I'm hesitant to pull out anything that doesn't look like clear text.

 

[RocketNut]

Salutations dmckee101

Could give us a example? I have a few IGES file I would like to copy right.

Rocket Nut

 

[dmckee101]

Sure here's a quickie.
I'll be going into a meeting and then directly to a 3 hour drive so I probably won't look at this thread again today.
Cheers.

 

[JST]

So, what is the effect of doing this? It appears that there is merely a line in the file, presumably asserting copyright if put in that way. That "tags" the file, but does not "give notice".

I see nothing in the part which gives copyright information. No notice pops up, etc in the on-screen display.

Of course a notice could also be inserted as a part, given a cryptic name, and potentially "suppressed" so that it does not show up until un-suppressed. That would be relatively clear proof, and would definitely persist unless someone went to a lot of trouble to examine each part.

Does the copyright line in the header persist when the IGES is saved as a "part"?

 

[RocketNut]

Does the copyright line in the header persist when the IGES is saved as a "part"?

That's good question

I see the copyright as a way of proving that I came up with the idea first. My copyright would have my company name and the date/time stamp proving that I was first.

Maybe there is some way to encrypt some of the part info by using the copyright info as the key. Meaning if the copyright is not there or incorrect the part will not open up properly.

 

[HaroldL]

You could always imprint the copyright info on the part in an inconspicuous place at a very, very small size. Then only you would know where it was and someone wouldn't be able to remove it from the imported part without a lot of effort.

 

[KMoffett]

I would think that you would need both visible and encrypted. The encrypted could say that if the visible one is missing, than the file copyright has been violated. I like the idea of the missing visible copyright disabling the file.

Ken

 

[KMoffett]

I would think that you would need both visible and encrypted. The encrypted could say that if the visible one is missing, than the file copyright has been violated. I like the idea of the missing visible copyright disabling the file.

Ken

 

[JST]

Does the copyright line in the header persist when the IGES is saved as a "part"?

That's good question

I see the copyright as a way of proving that I came up with the idea first. My copyright would have my company name and the date/time stamp proving that I was first.

Maybe there is some way to encrypt some of the part info by using the copyright info as the key. Meaning if the copyright is not there or incorrect the part will not open up properly.

These days, the precedence may no longer matter. The foreign "model" of patenting is that the first person who runs thru the door of the patent office gets the patent, no matter whose idea it is. The USPTO was always a "first inventor" model, but I understand we are "harmonizing" with the others, i.e. rolling over and surrendering here, so we will be like the foreign offices also. First thief through the patent office door gets to patent your idea.

So no biggie there.

The copyright is another deal... it might prove your precedence, or it might "prove" you hacked their computer and inserted that in the file(whether you actually did or not makes no difference).

Usually there will be an email trail, and those are hard to get rid of. Having the copyright asserted in the file is no doubt a good idea regardless.

 

[RocketNut]

Salutations JST

Patents are good thing, but what most don't know is a patent is only good for 7 years [I think you get an extension]. After that any one can use your original patent to produce there own.

There is another problem. I forgot what it's called, you patent might fail. Because some one filed an concept paper that your idea makes into realty. Then your in legal trouble because your infringing on there concept, an your patent might windup in court being sued. I found this little bit of info when a friend filed for a patent that ran into this problem. It was a real legal mess that I think he is still fighting.

Lew you might know more about this then I do.

So copyrighting a design for me is a good pliable option. Saying that if I think I have a chance for a patents, I will apply for one.

Rocket Nut

P.S.
Can't wait for the pics of Pluto close encounter

 

[JST]

I have one patent on which I am principal inventor, and some more are in progress in which I am not the primary.

You can file for a patent without in any way infringing on others. It will be denied, citing the prior patent, if it truly infringes, and the USPTO informs the lawyers of patent holders (if they subscribe) of new filings for comment, so they have a chance to object.

What you cannot do is to sell or offer for sale, build, use, etc anything using the ideas embodied in the claims of a patent which is still in force. For that you can be sued, and you can settle or fight it claiming the patent is invalid. In our area, a fight will cost about 2 mllion dollars, and you will lose, because the court for our district never overturns a patent unless the very same pictures and descriptions are in a textbook (not quite that bad, but you get the idea).

It may be cheaper to fight claiming you are not using their patent at all. And you might win that one if it's true.

Patents used to last 17 years, but will, under the new system, last 20. You may have to pay a fee to extend the patent after 5 or 7 years, which tends to discourage holding ones of no worth.

A good copyright is worth a dozen patents.... the law is clear, the amount of debate and gray area in a court case is minimal compared to what it is for a patent, the copyright is presumed to be held by the author in any dispute unless proven otherwise, and they last your life plus 50 years. And the penalty for violation is reasonably well set also.

So putting your copyright in a drawing or model is a good idea. Copyright = good. Patent = :roll:

 

[HaroldL]

...These days, the precedence may no longer matter. The foreign "model" of patenting is that the first person who runs thru the door of the patent office gets the patent, no matter whose idea it is. The USPTO was always a "first inventor" model, but I understand we are "harmonizing" with the others, i.e. rolling over and surrendering here, so we will be like the foreign offices also. First thief through the patent office door gets to patent your idea. ...

Already done that.

Also, there is a difference between copyright and patent that may be important. I found this link that explains it in somewhat legalese.

 

[bigseb]

P.S. Can't wait for the pics of Pluto close encounter

+1

 

[bigseb]

...These days, the precedence may no longer matter. The foreign "model" of patenting is that the first person who runs thru the door of the patent office gets the patent, no matter whose idea it is. The USPTO was always a "first inventor" model, but I understand we are "harmonizing" with the others, i.e. rolling over and surrendering here, so we will be like the foreign offices also. First thief through the patent office door gets to patent your idea. ...

Already done that.

Also, there is a difference between copyright and patent that may be important. I found this link that explains it in somewhat legalese.

I remember looking into this for a client some years ago and if I remember correctly patent laws are interpreted differently in various countries whereas copyright law is the same globally. I speak under correction...

 

[JST]

Lots of interpretations are different in various countries. Even the basis of the legal system may be different, Napoleonic vs US/British vs ??

Here, one good way to keep ahead of patent thieves is a "provisional patent application". Cheap, and puts your application on record with the USPTO. You cannot add new material, but you can refine what is already there when you do the actual filing, if you ever do.

Even the duration of copyright varies in different countries. And probably many are simpler than US, which is always complex as to the legal system.

But still a good idea to copyright. Of course, that depends on if it is for a client or not.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

Either way there is no way to prevent abuse and a long court battle will be required to get any reparations.

 

[JST]

Either way there is no way to prevent abuse and a long court battle will be required to get any reparations.

That's the nice thing about copyright. It is much more clear and clean-cut in the USA. Patents are a mess, everything must be proved.

Copyright infringement is relatively easy to prove. And the penalties are reasonably standardized. I know several individual people who have won against infringers.

I know "of" some large corporations which won patent suits......

See the difference?