Quote Originally Posted by Hosehead
Well, I ended up in an interesting discussion last evening.

A gentleman that is involved with helping us get our Emerald Society Pipe and Drum set up locally started a little battle with me over the "Irish National" tartan.

My understanding is that House of Edgar registered this tartan.

He gave me an earful claiming that "Pipers Cove", a pipe/drum supply store in New Jersey, "has the patent" for this tartan, and is suing Stillwater because of its use.

I dismissed him as being full of bunk. The people who always tell me I am wrong about these tartan issues are always using 'Official' or 'Patent' in their descriptions, and that is usually the red flag for me.

I am still pretty new at this, but sometimes I get frustrated when I have to argue in favor of one of the few things I think I do know.

Can anyone shed any more light on this? Is Irish National a HOE tartan, or someone elses? (Please note, I am aware that there is no 'Official' Irish tartan of any kind, from what I have been told...so we can leave out that part of the discussion...LOL)...

Thanks,

KL
Part of the big clue is that in the US (which is where a NJ company would file it's paperwork) a Patent is official government recognition and a grant of the exclusive right to manufacturer an physical invention, software, chemical formula, or process. If that company had come up with a new and different way to manufactur a tartan they could get a Patent on it.

However, a creative act, such a making a piece of art, writing a book, designing a poster or a pattern in cloth, is not a patentable item. It is copyrightable. By filing a copyright with the Library of Congress the originator of a creative design of any kind gains the exclusive right to make copies for a period of time. So a US company would be seeking a Copyright, not a patent.

Now, the terms a slightly different overseas, but the important thing about your friend's claim is that he is saying that a US company is the originator and so they would be claiming copyright infringement, not patent infringement.