Why Wasn't The Concept Of "BJDs" Patented?

I don't think you can patent something that has been around for hundreds of years. I saw a ball-jointed doll that was made in ancient Roman times, in a book.

 

You can't patent an idea. For example, I can't file a patent for "something that moves on four wheels and uses an engine" (a car). But Ford can patent their Focus. So while you wouldn't be able to patent "a doll that moves using ball joints", a company could patent their particular style of engineering.

 

I don't believe she is, because she's not made of resin.

Also, what linakauno said sums it up -- other than our dolls being made of other materials than their predecessors, ball-jointed dolls have been around for a long time. I'd think they'd perhaps have had better luck with the skeleton systems of the DD lines that use them.

I also believe other companies have innovated also in joint types and construction -- Dollshe, Fairyland, and Loongsoul come to mind initially as companies constantly exploring the medium in this manner, pre-coffee -- so not every innovation in BJD construction has come out of Volks' team. I don't know if they were the first to offer double joints/etc. or not, personally.

I think Loongsoul was working on a patent for their knee mechanism, for instance, though I am uncertain if it went through or not. I don't see why Hujoo couldn't attempt to do the same.

 

Hujoo Cora is available in both resin and ABS - the resin version is on-topic, the plastic is, obviously, off-topic.

The controversy over various companies and small ateliers being "inspired" by one another is something that is frequently discussed and dealt with on this forum. Try using "copying" in the General Discussion or Dolly Debate search fields and read through some of the resultant threads.

 

I don't think you can patent a general mechanism unless you designed it yourself. If BJD-type dolls were around a long, long time ago, as some have said, then they didn't create that mechanism, and can't profit from it.

However, I think that if there were no dolls like these back then, and the first BJD company did create the entire ball-joint mechanism, then I think they could get away with a patent. I think that companies do sort of have their dolls patented to some extent when it comes to mechanics because not every doll has the exact same jointing system. I don't mean double v. single joints, I mean what's inside each joint. Every company has their own way of trying to keep a joint in place. One company has really prominent ridges that help hold a pose very nicely, while others have a less useful mechanism. If another company were to come along and try to copy the smaller details of a company's doll, then I think there might be some issue, but having a doll that is ball-jointed alone is probably nothing.

 

Doesn't Volks hold a patent on their kips system?

Anyways, I believe patents are very specific. You can patent that ONE specific design, the way it works, if it's original enough from anything done before and unique enough to not be related to a common function (like, I'm pretty sure you can't patent a hinge joint, but you CAN patent a hinge joint that has little locks built into it (for whatever reason) that allows you to, say, set the door to never close more than half-way, or something). I'm quite certain I've seen at least a few mentions by the more ah, bigger innovative companies (as far as joint engineering goes), like Volks, Fairyland and Dollshe, mentioning that they patented that specific design, but I don't think very many do, because I also think patents are pretty expensive and difficult to acquire (and aren't they only valid within the country of issue anyways?).

 

Do you mean 'one-touch system' Lelite? I don't think Volks have any patents on KIPS, unless it's relating to the word 'KIPS'? They're just silicone discs - I've got some Volks brand KIPS and non-brand silicone discs and they're identical.

I think Volks' one-touch system (designed for removing hands and feet without having to unstring your doll or have haemostats to hold the strings) is unique to Volks and a trademark, but I'm not 100% sure. Volks couldn't have patented the knee joint of the SD16 girls and SDGr girls (where a high-heel foot/calf part can be switched out for a normal jointed ankle piece), because other companies are producing similar things like the Ariadoll 14 Years body and the new Spiritdoll Proud body.

I think after the copying problems of the past, Dollshe were determined to find some way to protect their designs. I think all of them are patented now, or at least the multi-jointed DSAM bodies are.

 

If a company A was doing something at the same time as company B, can company A suddenly trademark it? What happens with company B? When it comes to joint systems, if Volks made double jointed dolls, and some other companies also do that (I have one) would Volks have a right to suddenly trademark or copyright it?

Or better yet: Is there a time limit on how long you can copyright something? Say Volks was doing their double-joint system for seven years, and another company was doing the same kind of system for five years. The two aren't identical, but they both have the basic pieces for a double-jointing to be possible. If Volks suddenly decided they wanted to copyright that system after that amount of time, could they do it, even when another company has been profiting off of a similar system for such a long time?

 

WriterM, when you create something, as it's creator it is instantly copyright to you. Whether you then trademark it or patent it, that's up to you, but your work is copyright to you.

 

Jessica, "copyright" only applies to the written word. You cannot "copyright" an object, nor a system.

 

You can't patent something as general as a doll that has joints. You can't even patent something as general as a doll that has joints and is made of resin and elastic. This is because the ideas are simply that - general. You can however, patent a specific doll design - which is why you get things like knee designs and individual sculpts being patented, but not concepts.

You can't put a patent on a general concept or commodity. Otherwise there'd be people putting patents on everything. This ruling has been backed up by so many court cases it's not funny.

 

Dolls are typically outlined and designed on paper first and the physical sculpt follows. Copyright also applies to photography, which isn't the written word. If copyright can protect a knitting pattern, drawing and how-to manual, it also applies to someone's written/drawn doll plans.

"Copyright protects written, theatrical, musical and artistic works as well as film, book layouts, sound recordings, and broadcasts. Copyright is an automatic right, which means you don't have to apply for it."

"Copyright protects many types of work, from music and lyrics to photographs and knitting patterns."

"Copyright applies to all sorts of written and recorded materials from software and the internet to drawings and photography."
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm

 

Not entirely true. Although initially only the 'written word' could be copyrighted, now picture, photographs, even motion pictures all fall under copyright.
But, you can't copyright a system or an invention. Those things have to be patented, yes.

Like others have said, Volks couldn't copyright the BJD, because that concept existed for centuries and it's not defined enough. Can't patent the 'car' either, or the 'water tap', only one design.
It is possible to patent a specific joint, or some other aspect of the doll's mechanism, though and some companies do.