Here's a basic description of how this works, intended for kids.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
A superb and passionate exposition of American patent law is in the opening of this book (of all places):
It's the best thing I think I've ever read explaining the intent and beauty of US patents, and it makes the case so clearly that even the most stubborn gear-forum gristlehead can usually understand it.
The problem in these discussions is that the people arguing the loudest about "ripping off someone's design" are the most technically ignorant (and if you think it's bad here, try it on guitar forums), those who do not understand that changing a couple of values in a dirtbox's components isn't Big Science (even though it sounds "awesome"), but just a trivial advancement in the evolution of established, generic tech, and therefore the property of
EVERYONE. Your "awesome" dirtbox or tube amp design is analogous to an opinion or an idea. It's probably nowhere as original as you think, and certainly not patentable. If you can develop it enough to make money off it or get elected to office on its appeal, fine -- it may be a good idea that makes life better -- but everyone else is as perfectly free to share, exploit, sell, modify or do anything else with "your idea" as you are. "Ideas" are not patentable.
It's mere intellectual
exercise, not intellectual
property.
If, on the other hand, you really have a truly unique piece of technology that is significant and truly original, file for a patent. In the unlikely event you're onto something that's as special as you think it is, the patent office will recognize it as such and grant you an exclusive right to its commercial exploitation for a fixed amount of time. At the end of that period, your technology belongs to everyone in the world -- hopefully to make it a better place in which to live.
What's disturbing is the crooked application of copyright and trade dress laws to underhandedly and unethically extend the practical limits of of expired patents.
What bothers me the most in these discussions, though, is how people will consistently argue against their own interests (and the law) in seeing better and more affordable gear more broadly available.
