[fso301]

Not BS. The model kit companies can't afford the teams of lawyers the aerospace companies can. The litigation costs will crush the model kit manufacturers, even if they win. This is a major argument for loser-pays litigation.

For decades, the aerospace and defense companies have done nothing to stop kitmakers/gamemakers/others from using their trademarks, copyrights, and patents. Having made no attempts to protect their property, they are at serious risk of losing it.

This thing should settle out of court before summary judgement.

[Poohbah]

For decades, the aerospace and defense companies have done nothing to stop kitmakers/gamemakers/others from using their trademarks, copyrights, and patents. Having made no attempts to protect their property, they are at serious risk of losing it.

One more time: if it was built for Uncle Sam, it's not their IP. They've used that statement as their prime defense in product liability suits stemming from aircraft crashes. If they're claiming ownership of the intellectual property now, they are also claiming responsibility for any damage brought about by defects in design (such as the infamous mast-bumping issue in the Bell H-1 series).

[orionblamblam]

> For decades, the aerospace and defense companies have done nothing to stop kitmakers/gamemakers/others from using their trademarks, copyrights, and patents.

Why should they? Back in the 1960's, when Monogram (or Revell??) was working on what would become the ground-breaking 1/48 scale B-17, Boeing bent over backwards to be helpful, providing drawings and expertise for free. Because back then they realized that a good model was Good Advertising and Good PR.

A model hurts a defense contractor precisely None At All, while at the same time a *good* model can help them rather a lot.