Natwerk Designs

What makes it unethical for a Structural Engineer to verify/seal another Innovator's New Structural Designs?

Example: An Innovator comes up with an improvement in structural design and assembly of building frames, that will advance the Field of Structural Engineering, the Science of Physics, and the Industry of Construction. The structures the Structural Engineers currently work on and sell to the Public will have more options, advancements, and improvements with the new structural innovation, to offer the Public. The new structural innovation will add additional structural innovations, educational, and recruiting possibilities to the Field of Structural Engineering. The structural innovation reduces the costs of assembling structure frames, and leads to reductions of material sizes to construct a building or structure. The structural innovation meets the three core Principles of Structural Engineering; Safety, Workability, and Affordability. The structural innovation cannot be acquired any other way except for Verifying the Innovator's works, working prototypes, and physical tests performed and recorede, that show absolute improvement to current Structure Design and Assembly, or by awarding the Innovator with a Structural Engineering Registration and Seal of his own. The structural innovation reduces damages and destruction of life, limb, and property in natural disasters and collision impacts. The structural innovation reduces work, labor, and money it takes to respond to, rescue and recovery, and repairing and rebuilding after tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, collisions, and floods. Which is more unethical; Continuing to approve buildings and structures that fail and harm the Public, or Verify the Innovator's structural innovation and improvement so that the Field of Structural Engineering can grow and advance, improve their products and services? The Innovator is Credited with the discovery and development of the structural innovation, and Legally Recognized as well as Publicly recognized as such. In effect, no Structural Engineer can use the new structural innovation or develop any type of similar structural systems without compensating or receiving permission from the Innovator. Workability means the same as Designability, as one of the three core Principles of Structural Engineering. It is ok per the International Building Code and Building Officials, too. Monophoto; Great answer; Please accept this clarification on the structural innovation: The structural innovation, as an accessory item to a primary structure frame/body, improves the structural performance of the accessorized structure frame/body, proven in several Structural Engineering practiced, and in the Fields of Mathematics, Construction Assembly, and Scientific Proof Methods and practices. The structural innovation thus becomes a Technology, because of the (positive) change in the physics of the accessorized structure frame/body, and the resulting improvements realized by the combined structure frame/body. Regardless of which provides the higher performance or functioning, the accessorized structure frame/body retains Primary Structure Status. The Primary Structure Frame/Body defines the shape of the structure, by maintaining the higher amount of rigidity and compression resistance, and was developed first in the chronological order of things. Monophoto; Great point about Professional Sealing and Patentabilities of this particular type of structural innovation. As Gaitorbait explains, when the Innovator is of another Field than Structural Engineering, the Works of the Innovator requires a Professional Verification and Seal, for the structural innovation is included with Products sold to and used bt rhe Public. As for Patents on the structural innovation, Technologies and Physics Phenomenae are not Patentable, but the resulting Products and System are, when the resulting End-Product is not assisted structurally by natural means (entrenched foundationed buildings, etc.). As for Professional Structural Engineering on the structural innovation, when the structural innovation consists of a continuous, Primary Frame aceesory which connects directly to the Primary Frame/Body, both Free-Standing and Entrenched structures require Professional Engineering Design Verification, of the Resulting Frame/Body System(s). As for the Innovator's responsibilities and securitization of his.her role in the structural Innovation, the Patents Office provides a Public Disclosure Rules and Regulations for those Innovators who discover & develop Technologies and Physics Phenomenae, which for the Innovator to "stake his/her claim" to the new technolgy or as Originator of the new Technology, in collaboration with the Treasury Department's Business Development Services Subsidiary Department. This includes that the Innovator establish a Business Entity and list all/part of the innovation in acceptable and Approved Business Entity Registries (minimum two). To Protect his/her Rights of Credit and Compensatory Securities, the Innovator must prove the Originality of the new Technology, and prove that he/she is the Person of discovery/development of the new Technology. I personally accomplished these measures by having my drawings eye-witnessed before Publicly Disclosing the new Technology. The measures (steps) I took to Establish this new Technology, and establish myself as the Originator (discoverer/founder) of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Structural Strap-Nets (and Extensions), establishes me as the Author of this new Technology, and as such, I retain all Copyrights to this new Technology, and therefore, can require Compensation from any/all who choose to add this new Technology to their Product(s) and System(s). Once the Copyrights to this new Technology is obtained legally by those choosing to add this new Technology to their Field, Business, Educational Institution, Product a/o Service, they also absorb and retain the same Copyrights as the Original Innovator. The difference between Patenting Products and Establishing Technologies is that Patented Products and Systems have time limits of the Originator/Inventor, and the Originator of the new Technology maintains the Credit of Discovery and Authorship of the new Technology for Eternity. Gaitorbait; Great point on whether the Innovator is a Registeered Engineer/Professional or not. My understanding of this area is as follows: If the Innovator is a Registered Professional Designer or Not a Registered Professional Designer (Engineer/Architect), the Works of the Innovation still requires another Professional Designer's Verification and Seal.

Public Comments

1. This doesn't sound at all like a matter of profession sealing. Instead, it sounds like the innovator is claiming that he has a patent on his innovation and is demanding that structural engineers who want to use his innovation must pay a royalty. I would seek the advice of a good IP attorney. I'm not sure that a design concept can be patented.
2. Is the innovator a Registered Professional Civil/Structural Engineer??. If not, his design must be reviewed and checked by a Registered Professional before it is used, every time it is used. If he is, the design must still be reviewed and checked by a registered professional each time it is used. That's just the way it is, and it applies to all engineering fields and engineering work. Also, just because the new design is an improvement does not mean every one has to use it. If the method does not appear in the Steel Construction Manuals as a steel consstruction requirement, it is not necessary that everyone has to use the new method.