[quote]perseng wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The issue isn’t using the system, the issue is attaching Wendler’s name to it, calling it the Wendler 5/3/1 App and then putting it out there. It creates the impression that Wendler endorses the App, which he does not.
Besides, isn’t P90X patented and copyrighted material? Aside from its staggering difference in awesomeness, what is the difference between the 5/3/1 program and the P90X program? You can make an App that lays out a program of high-rep, bodyweight exercises or whatever P90X is, but you can’t put the P90X name on it without their permission, let alone make any money off of it this way.
I don’t know if the guy plans on making money with this, but that’s actually immaterial to the whole discussion anyways, since he can’t attach Wendler’s name to it regardless.
And I’m not entirely sure you’re correct in assertion about patenting a system of movements and “natural law”. I suppose the recipe analogy was poor and the songwriting one may be irrelevant, but I’d like the opinion of a licensed, practicing contract law attorney. I think Jewbacca is an attorney who works in the area of contract law. Maybe he will come across this thread and clear things up for us.[/quote]
Yeah, I should have stated I’m not an expert on it, just a programmer who’s spent a fair bit of time looking at patent and copyright related laws. I don’t know exactly what P90X has, but like you said it’s probably just copyrighting on the materials and trademarking etc - which is all fair enough.
If, however I was wrong about systems of exercise being subject to patent - ie. someone being able to slap a patent on ‘do 3 x 10 with intensities x% y% z% and rest for exactly 2 minutes 48 second between sets, and increase the intensity by w% over the next workout’ - then no matter how specific, it would be a really crappy day that a patent on that system would be granted. Because eventually you’d see the exercise world sliced up into little segments of ‘truth’ that each IP holder has the right to exclude others from using… including just a guy or girl who wants to work out in a certain way.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who’s a proper lawyer though 
[/quote]
Yeah, I wonder about the specificity of the “system” in question. I wonder if the courts decide that something can be sufficiently unique so as to warrant a patent or that something is sufficiently generic and cannot. I think Wendler’s is about as specific as they come regarding the main exercise. I guess I’d have to say that his views on accessory lifts make them ineligible for patenting since they are so generalized; dips, chins, rows, good mornings, etc for high reps, moderate weight basically.
But I’m curious to know if that is even relevant to the discussion. I can’t imagine that they’d take it upon themselves to determine whether something is unique enough to be patented. I suppose that would mean the courts would have to be knowledgeable in many different, random areas in order to know whether something is generic or unique compared to the community standard. I can’t imagine there are many judges out there who know enough to know that Wendler’s system falls into partially into both categories.
We need a fucking lawyer. They’re all over the goddamned place until you actually want to see one.