Take the 2-minute tour ×
Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When the James Rhodes took Tony Stark's armour in Iron Man 2 wasn't that stealing a patented product and if so why didn't Stark take legal action against the US government?

Pepper Potts was heard speaking to a lawyer about it over when Stark visited her in her office but we know nothing ever came of that since the government still has the armour in Iron Man 3!

share|improve this question
3  
As we learned in "Armageddon", the government stole they key to the patent office :) –  DVK Apr 16 at 17:47
15  
I can believe in fist-sized fusion reactors, fusion-powered flight, strong AI, synthetic transuranic elements and a human-wearable suit that includes all of that and fits in a suitcase, but that the government would give that up because of a judge's ruling? Please. –  Beta Apr 16 at 21:02
4  
He actually kind of wanted Rhodes to have the suit: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/15022/… –  HorusKol Apr 17 at 0:03
3  
Sue the United States Government? Don't make me laugh... –  IQAndreas Apr 17 at 4:26
1  
I think all this patent stuff is a bit of a red herring, since this question is dealing with a physical object rather than the underlying technology. Regular property laws would come into it more than intellectual property laws. –  evilsoup Apr 17 at 21:09

4 Answers 4

Even if Stark sued the government and won, the most he could have received is reasonable compensation for his costs and/or damages. Under US patent law, he can't stop the US government from using a patented product if it so chooses.

It is also possible Stark had not patented some of the suit components. In order to receive a patent, you must make the details of your invention public. The invention could then be copied, for example by supervillains who do not care about being sued for patent infringement. Instead, Stark might effectively be keeping the suit as a trade secret. In that case he would have even less protection against the government using the suit's technology.

(I Am Not A Lawyer, but a quick Google indicates the law is pretty clear on these points.)

share|improve this answer
1  
Oh I see, I was confused by the difference between a copyrighted piece of intellectual property and a patented product. Yes it is unlikely that Stark patented the armour and the government would have only compensated him financially. –  Happy Birthday Roboto Apr 16 at 21:59
6  
@HappyBirthdayRoboto "The Empire will compensate for your losses." –  Zibbobz Apr 17 at 13:34
1  
I'd say that it's pretty clear Stark relies on being smart and creative enough to overcome his recklessness...I'm not seeing Tony going through the hoops of getting stuff patented. Besides, if Tony Stark decides he doesn't want the U.S. government to have War Machine, he's not going to bother with lawyers...he's going to fly up to Rhodey, zap War Machine, and fly home. –  Chris B. Behrens Apr 17 at 14:41
3  
Patents can be classified as national security under §115, 35 U.S.C. 181 of the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. This happens after filing, by a separate examination board appointed for such review. –  New Alexandria Apr 17 at 15:20
1  
Also, even if Tony patented the idea of the suit as the first thing he did when he got back from Afghanistan in the first Iron Man, most likely he still wouldn't have actually received a patent, up to the "present" day (Captain America 2 or the latest episode of S.H.I.E.L.D. I guess). Patents take years to get, even for obviously-novel technology like the Iron Man suit. That's why you see "Patent Pending" on things all the time. Sure, he'd get the patent eventually, and then be able to sue anyone who copied the suit while it was pending, but by then would it matter? –  KRyan Apr 17 at 17:03

He may or may not have sued. Lawsuits, especially between large corporations or the government, drag on for years and years through the various trials and appeals. It is likely that if a lawsuit was in progress, by the time of the events of Iron Man 3 it was still in progress. Just because it was not mentioned in IM3, doesn't mean it wasn't going on.

share|improve this answer
4  
See Apple vs Samsung (still about Galaxy SII) –  DVK Apr 17 at 2:25

What does being patented have to do with it? Theft is theft. Patents, and trade secret law would more come in to play when legally going after Hammer for stealing his design. As far as legally going after the government for taking the armor, he wouldn't get very far. The government would claim eminent domain. Eminent domain can be for public safety concerns which the armor surely is.

share|improve this answer

You can't sue the US federal government unless they consent to being sued, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.