Scenario 1: I cut out a square inch from the sail of my genuine Rev 1.5 SLE, possibly (but not necessarily) because it was damaged. Then I sew in a piece of Icarex to replace it.
Scenario 2: I cut off nearly half of the sail, possibly (but not necessarily) because it was damaged. Then I add a few pieces of Icarex to replace the missing half.
Scenario 3: I sew an entire new sail, but I incorporate a square inch cut from the original sail (rather like a Stalag Luft III escapee incorporating a button from his uniform in the fake civvies he wears for escaping).
Scenario 4: I set aside the original sail entirely, and I sew an entirely new one that I think is prettier. But I use the original Rev spars and fittings.
Scenario 5: As scenario 3, but I patch the original sail and I buy a new set of spars and fittings for it - and lo, I now have two working Revs!
Which of the above (if any) would amount to an infringement of the Rev patent? And bearing in mind that I had actually made a genuine purchase of a genuine Rev (plus extras in the case of Scenario 5), would any court anywhere in the world be likely to find me guilty of an infringement of the Rev patent? None of the scenarios involves even the slightest financial loss for Messrs. Hadzicki. Oh well, maybe Scenario 5, but only if I try to sell one of the two resulting Revs!
(and yes, I accept there could be doubt over whether either of them ought actually to be called a Rev!)
I find I'm feeling towards the Hadzickis much the same sort of feelings I have towards Mr Gates. I wish I didn't have to use Windows, but Unix and all the other available alternatives are - well, they're useless really. But only because the Gates marketing is more aggressive. I try to make a point by using Firefox instead of IE. It's rather like peeing into the wind though ...
Brian. (Past it, but reaching back!)
Silver Fox 2.5; HQ Shadow SUL; Rev 1.5 SLE; Spiderkites URO; Etc...