Quote:
Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill
What?!
Why is design less worthy of protection than anything else? It's protection of someone's work and ideas, exactly the same as any other field.
That betrays a total ignorance of the visual world and of the notion of any value of design. The patent laws cover things like widescreen TVs because of obviousness.
The term 'design' covers both function and appearance. These can be viewed together and separately. In the case of Apple vs Samsung, it's both. The physical design was copied, and the interface appearance and function. I'm going to use the dots to indicate which screen is current as an example.
|
I'm all for protection of design traits that fulfill specific structural (or other) needs in a unique way. For instance, the aerodynamic design of a prius grill. Of course, Formula 1 cars have been using all of those aerodynamic elements since inception, and most of this stuff comes from the airplane companies anyways. Maybe a better example would be the strut design for a booster rocket
However, design which is solely for the point of being pretty, like Apple's, is not worthy of protection in my world view. Patents are (say it with me):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
|
Pretty is not useful (unless you're a young female). Let them be satisfied with trademarks.