Gulfstream G550

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>Regardless of the relative merits of the "enforcement">argument the following question remains....>>Why would any thinking commercial group commit to 14-16 months>of development of a top quality Gulfstream without the>blessing of the company itself? It would seem to be in the>best interest of any company who wished to develop a complex,>top quality Gulfstream for FS to establish a solid, mutually>beneficial, relationship with Gulfstream. Any attempt to>circumvent such a common sense approach would simply prove to>be more legal headache than sales of such a project would>warrant.:-)Of course it'd be better to have the blessing and cooperation of the company. No problem there. But should the company only bless one developer, and then attempt to exclude others, well, that's not healthy. Should the company demand or receive royalties for that blessing...ditto. I doubt severely that every maker of a quality payware Boeing product has a relationship with Boeing...it's a "nice to have" rather than a "must have."And let's take this a step further...what would prevent application of the same logic to Honeywell and Rockwell for their avionics...to the architects who designed any building appearing in an FS scenery...the whole thing takes us in a bad direction. This is a cause worth fighting for.Last, it's not just an enforcement argument being made. These overreaching sorts of IPR claims aren't even accepted in much of the world...and arguably not even in the USA.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[WarpD 824]

In the case of the Gulfstream, the reason no commercial developer has ever released one is because Gulfstream has been quite clear that they'll pursue legal action. While you sit on a mountainside in the middle of nowhere (not that I know a thing about Chile)... most commercial developers reside within the U.S. and most of them don't make enough income to afford the cost of a lawyer to even respond to a legal action against them. It's not worth the risk, or the cost to persue it without permission.Gulfstream has patents on the shapes that make up their aircraft, even the windows. They protect them quite heavily, whether you approve or like it or not. Patents garner far more protection than mere copyright or trademark, but it's been my experience as a software professional that copyright enforcement is far more active than you think it is. I've even seen company web sites shut down by courts because they use material that's not theirs to use. A copyright is a copyright is a copyright. If it's not yours... you better have permission, in writing.As far as avionics are concerned... most of them have the same "look and feel". As I stated regarding the Microsoft vs Apple "look and feel" lawsuit... the judge threw it out because it's a reasonable expectation that an ADI should look like an ADI no matter who makes it.Your "cause" is, simply put, not what you think it is. You're screaming that you have the right to develop an identical model of absolutely anything anyone else has ever made and profit from it. In short, you take that approach... sooner or later someone IS going to get you.As for your last statement, just plain wrong. :)

[N400QW 205]

Bob,You raise some interesting points regarding the right of a specific company, in this case Gulfstream, to exclusively "bless one developer" while excluding other developers. While it may not be "healthy" in your view, they as a corporation have a perfect right to do just that if they so choose. The arguments in this thread, while interesting from an academic perspective, hold no water in the "business world". Gulfstream maintains a position regarding their products because they have a perfectly legal right to do so. It really is that simple.From a business perspective, any developer who attempts to circumvent the Gulfstream policy would, as mentioned before, have more legal and economic headaches than would be offset by imagined profits. Seems the arguments will remain fruitless until some commercial developer is granted the permissions and "blessings" of Gulfstream:-)

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>While you sit>on a mountainside in the middle of nowhere (not that I know a>thing about Chile)No, clearly you don't. That's a classically ignorant US view of anywhere south of the Rio Grande. We call the area of Santiago where I work "Sanhattan," because of its high-rises and businesses very reminiscent of Manhattan. ... most commercial developers reside within>the U.S. and most of them don't make enough income to afford>the cost of a lawyer to even respond to a legal action against>them. It's not worth the risk, or the cost to persue it>without permission.Yeah, like Level-D (Canada), Feelthere (Czech Rep), PSS (UK), Captain Sim (Russia), Cloud9 (Italy), Project Magenta (Italy), LAGO Maddog (Italy), Ariane (UK), etc etc. >Gulfstream has patents on the shapes that make up their>aircraft, even the windows. They protect them quite heavily,>whether you approve or like it or not. Patents garner far>more protection than mere copyright or trademark, but it's>been my experience as a software professional that copyright>enforcement is far more active than you think it is. I've>even seen company web sites shut down by courts because they>use material that's not theirs to use. A copyright is a>copyright is a copyright. If it's not yours... you better>have permission, in writing.Were that the case, they'd have stopped all those guys from selling $200 Gulfstream models. The patents do not go nearly as far as you think, whether you like it or not.>As far as avionics are concerned... most of them have the same>"look and feel". As I stated regarding the Microsoft vs Apple>"look and feel" lawsuit... the judge threw it out because it's>a reasonable expectation that an ADI should look like an ADI>no matter who makes it.Suggest you go read the case law on that. You've got the reasoning all wrong.>Your "cause" is, simply put, not what you think it is. You're>screaming that you have the right to develop an identical>model of absolutely anything anyone else has ever made and>profit from it. In short, you take that approach... sooner or>later someone IS going to get you.First, there's no "screaming" going on here, unless it happens to be you doing it. Second, I believe I do have the right to make a computer model of anything I can look out my window and see, not to copy the modeling work of others.>As for your last statement, just plain wrong. :)My last statement about lack of international acceptance of these sorts of claims is correct. You don't garner a lot of credibility calling it otherwise when you characterize the booming nation and economic miracle that is Chile as a "mountaintop in the middle of nowhere." Do a little research and you'll find that Chile's approach to IPR is a point of contention for the last several Ambassadors here.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>Bob,>You raise some interesting points regarding the right of a>specific company, in this case Gulfstream, to exclusively>"bless one developer" while excluding other developers. >While it may not be "healthy" in your view, they as a>corporation have a perfect right to do just that if they so>choose. >>The arguments in this thread, while interesting from an>academic perspective, hold no water in the "business world".>Gulfstream maintains a position regarding their products>because they have a perfectly legal right to do so. It really>is that simple.It's only that simple if you accept the base premise that an acft (or car, or boat etc) manufacturer has some supposed legal right over any image of the same. Many do not...and the modelling hobbies are done if that ever becomes accepted in international law.>From a business perspective, any developer who attempts to>circumvent the Gulfstream policy would, as mentioned before,>have more legal and economic headaches than would be offset by>imagined profits. Seems the arguments will remain fruitless>until some commercial developer is granted the permissions and>"blessings" of Gulfstream:-)Or until somebody, probably from the developing world, puts a quality add-on on the streets without asking permission where there's no need.If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on, who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs on the street corners in Moscow...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[WarpD 824]

"If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on, who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs on the street corners in Moscow..."Ok... that pretty much sums up your position on the subject from beginning to end.

[N400QW 205]

Bob, just because Russia or other countries ignore what is right does not in any way diminish the responsibility of US based developers to obtain certain permissions before proceeding on any given project.We suggest that any of the mentioned development groups based in other countries would still face quite a few legal and economic sanctions were they to proceed on specific Gulfstream projects for the FS commercial market. We do know of one non US developer who recently produced a specific aircraft and were indeed sanctioned for not obtaining permissions before release and the matter is still a sticking point for that developer and the overflow effect is that the company in question now refuses permission for other developers.Further, the assumption that the solid models you linked to did not receive permissions from Gulfstream is just that, an assumption. We suggest that in matters of business, just as in real world flight, it is better not to make assumptions since, in business at least, the possibility of severe economic sanctions does clearly exist:-)

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>"If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on,>who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs>on the street corners in Moscow...">>Ok... that pretty much sums up your position on the subject>from beginning to end.No, it doesn't, and any intelligent person who read this thread already knows that.Need any help finding Moscow on a map? Hint: it's not on a mountaintop in the middle of nowhere...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>Bob, just because Russia or other countries ignore what is>right does not in any way diminish the responsibility of US>based developers to obtain certain permissions before>proceeding on any given project.What "is right" outside the US is not defined by the US Congress or court system. It's a globalized world.>We suggest that in matters of business, just as in real world>flight, it is better not to make assumptions since, in>business at least, the possibility of severe economic>sanctions does clearly exist:-)Sadly, in the USA the "possibility of severe economic sanctions" exists every time you start your car, own property, or even try to help someone in distress. I prefer to focus on the very low probability of ever seeing these severe economic sanctions...due in part to the very questionable nature of the claims, and due in part to unenforceability outside one piece of a global market. It'd be bad PR, too...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Guest Simpit]

Kind of a shame that H.R. 4806 never passed:http://www.hmahobby.com/legislature.htmlI bet a number of different G models would be covered...Simpit

[WarpD 824]

>>What "is right" outside the US is not defined by the US>Congress or court system. It's a globalized world.>The world, as in the civilized part, would strenuously disagree with you. Interpol would disagree with you. People are put in prison in many countries when caught stealing IPR. Even for stuff from the U.S. being bootlegged outside the U.S.>>Sadly, in the USA the "possibility of severe economic>sanctions" exists every time you start your car, own property,>or even try to help someone in distress. I prefer to focus on>the very low probability of ever seeing these severe>economic sanctions...due in part to the very questionable>nature of the claims, and due in part to unenforceability>outside one piece of a global market. It'd be bad PR, too...>The nature of the claims are anything but questionable. However, that aside... if someone goes after you for IPR theft, I hope you have a few $100k stashed away for legal fees. It'll cost you that much to retain a lawyer for your defense. Interesting thing about law suits... if the plaintiff fails to show, it's a default judgement against them... if the plaintiff fails to respond correctly within a specific alloted time, it's a default judgement against them.Just an FYI, Gulfstream has corporate offices in South America. ;)If you think a developer outside the U.S. can't be shut down... imagine what would happen if Gulfstream (huge company, owned by General Dynamics... REALLY huge!) went after the credit card clearing house (huge, but not as huge, seriously) that processed the developer's payments. Lose your credit card processing, you no longer make any income on any of your products. ;)You honestly have no idea how many avenues of enforcement and recouperation they have available to them... and it's completely international.

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>The world, as in the civilized part, would strenuously>disagree with you. By that, I guess you mean that part of the world not on a mountaintop in the middle of nowhere? The "civilized" world is lucky to have such a travelled and wise spokesman.>Interpol would disagree with you. People>are put in prison in many countries when caught stealing IPR. >Even for stuff from the U.S. being bootlegged outside the>U.S.You just don't get it...so I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. We're not talking about enforcing an IPR established and accepted in international law. Movies, music, books, computer software...fall into that category. We're talking about the manufacturer of a vehicle claiming ownership over any image of one of those vehicles. That's not an established claim, and Interpol could care less...what little manpower they have dedicated to IPR enforcement is busy with legit cases involving people copying DVDs by the thousands. Ask 'em.>Just an FYI, Gulfstream has corporate offices in South>America. ;)Yes, I know. I've been on the Gulfstream factory floor at least ten times...and know a couple senior execs there, too. They're a great outfit. And to be clear, this discussion can be about any aircraft manufacturer.>>If you think a developer outside the U.S. can't be shut>down... imagine what would happen if Gulfstream (huge company,>owned by General Dynamics... REALLY huge!) went after the>credit card clearing house (huge, but not as huge, seriously)>that processed the developer's payments. Lose your credit>card processing, you no longer make any income on any of your>products. ;)And if the developer sells through an international publisher? C'mon, the CC company wants the transaction...they could care less about GD's petty squabbles with some kid making airplane pictures on his computer.>You honestly have no idea how many avenues of enforcement and>recouperation they have available to them... and it's>completely international.Funny how fast you've become an international expert. Here from my mountaintop in Sanhattan I see up-close every day how hard it is and the shortage of resources required to enforce important international laws...counternarcotics, child porno, trafficking in humans, IPR cases involving mass copying of computer, audio, and video software...so you'll have to forgive my amusement at your rather naive sense of self-importance with this petty noise-level stuff. It's questionable at best, and way out on the fringes. Other than making for some interesting banter, nobody cares.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[N400QW 205]

Interesting that you know a few Senior Gulfstream execs at the South America Gulfstream facility. Perhaps you could use your influence with those same execs to obtain the permissions needed for commercial FS Developers to proceed with an authorized version:-)Seems it would be a better approach than has been discussed so far.Put yourself in the commercial developers shoes for the moment and imagine that it is YOUR cash outlay, YOUR team labor, and YOUR long term investment that YOU are placing at risk and we are SURE that YOUR outlook would change. As a Gulfstream pilot with Gulfstream contacts why not simply obtain the required permissions and select a developer who could do the project justice and simplify the entire process?:-)By the way, if you DO obtain permissions, please drop me an email and we'll talk:-)

[Bob Scott 7,720]

>Interesting that you know a few Senior Gulfstream execs at>the South America Gulfstream facility. Perhaps you could use>your influence with those same execs to obtain the permissions>needed for commercial FS Developers to proceed with an>authorized version:-)Now why would I do that, given that I'm not a commercial developer?>Seems it would be a better approach than has been discussed so>far.>Put yourself in the commercial developers shoes for the moment>and imagine that it is YOUR cash outlay, YOUR team labor, and>YOUR long term investment that YOU are placing at risk and we>are SURE that YOUR outlook would change. With MY "developer's shoes" on, I note that MY cash outlays, MY labor, and MY investments in these sorts of projects go to the community for free. So MY outlook is clearly different from YOURS in that I am doing what I do for the benefit of MY fellow simmers without considering MY bottom-line.>As a Gulfstream pilot with Gulfstream contacts why not simply>obtain the required permissions and select a developer who>could do the project justice and simplify the entire>process?:-)Because my point is that there should be a major fight on, with international scope, to avoid ever reaching a point where we truly need to GET permissions to make computer models of aircraft. The principle and the precedents are the issue, not a G-V model. If WE just shrug our shoulders and pay the ransom rather than put up a fight, WE lose.Sure is getting HARD to type a STRAIGHT sentence all of a SUDDEN. (-:CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V Santiago de Chile

[n4gix 4,947]

Bob, to the best of my knowledge there is one and only one company that's being a major PITA about this issue - General Dynamics...The other manufacturers are - for the most part - extremely enthusiastic to work with folks who ask. Those few who aren't "enthusiastic" are simply indifferent, therefore benign.