'you can’t patent curved glass'

[taustin]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I'd love to know how they could prove the difference between an (allegedly) "designed" 4-stroke engine sound and one that sounds similar purely because it has a particular cylinder layout, uses no supposedly sound-altering devices, and, say, straight pipes.
Rather strange how some other motors have a distinctive engine sound without any extra effort being made to enter a "sound boutique" competition.
Still, I suppose Harley had to find something radical and important to develop on their power plants .......

It's one of the most distinctive features of their early models, and no four stroke gasoline engine makes that sound except on purpose. It's a legitimate trademark. Nobody else's motorcycle will sound like a Harley unless they make it do so on purpose, and the only reason to make it do so on purpose it to profit from Harley's reputation. That's what trademarks are all about stopping.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

But, the sound that a particular configuration of engine components and sizes makes is natural for that particular configuration. Does that pick your nit any better?

Because the origin of the unique rumble of a Harley is from a motor that isn't at all like a modern 4 stroke engine, no other motorcycle engine will sound like that naturally. It really is a legitimate trademark. Otherwise, there'd have been a successful challenge to it decades ago.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Trademarking the sound of an engine is ridiculous. I can make a knock-off soda that tastes the same, I can make a knock-off perfume that smells the same, but I can't make an engine that happens to sound like a Harley-Davidson? Engine noise is a side effect, it's like trademarking exhaust fumes.

In the case of a Harley, it's not a side effect. It's a deliberate design choice, and the result of a considerable amount of effort. But thanks for trying.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Looks like one of Apples designers was a bit too inspired by someone elses design:

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20/...railway-clock/

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Looks like one of Apples designers was a bit too inspired by someone elses design:

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20/...railway-clock/

Yes, they've definitely been caught ripping off a clock design. They should have licences it or used a different design. Someone was lazy in checking out whether the design was public domain or not..

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Looks like one of Apples designers was a bit too inspired by someone elses design:

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20/...railway-clock/

Is this for real?
What exactly is worth protecting about that design?

I'm sure I've seen countless variations of that "design" - hard to believe they're all licensed (or even inspired by that clock).

Unless I'm missing something important, all I see is a basic 12 hour clock reduced to the essential minimum, removing numbers.
The seconds hand has a circle at the end. Yay?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

Is this for real?
What exactly is worth protecting about that design?

I'm sure I've seen countless variations of that "design" - hard to believe they're all licensed (or even inspired by that clock).

Unless I'm missing something important, all I see is a basic 12 hour clock reduced to the essential minimum, removing numbers.
The seconds hand has a circle at the end. Yay?

There are many ways to reduce a clock face to a minimum without numbers.
This is clearly a copy of someone else's intellectual property.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

There are many ways to reduce a clock face to a minimum without numbers.
This is clearly a copy of someone else's intellectual property.

The google link doesn't really show that many clocks without numbers - I think google links aren't absolute.

Even so, those I saw mostly worked along the same principle - remove the number, enlarge the "five minute" marks, perhaps leave the minutes.
Not all use a seconds hand, and certainly not shaped like the SBB one, though.

BTW, would you say that MS also copied the design? (See attachment)

I'm not saying they're identical, just that it's the same general principle again.
Perhaps apple copied the design, might just be - but I think it's not really worth protection in the first place. It can easily be coincidence.
(Nor are rounded corners and such.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

BTW, would you say that MS also copied the design? (See attachment)

I'm not saying they're identical, just that it's the same general principle again.
Perhaps apple copied the design, might just be - but I think it's not really worth protection in the first place. It can easily be coincidence.
(Nor are rounded corners and such.)

Not even close.
Apple copied the open circle on the second hand, they copied the thickness of the hour marks, they copied the *entire* design. MS just coughed up a generic numberless clock face.

It is that very distinction that a lot of people can't seem to grasp about design patents; it's not about curved glass--it is about one very specfic curved shape--and it's not about just rounded corners but rather the combination of design elements that as a whole identify the product.

Curved glass?
How about this one:


The classic Pepsi swirl bottle.
It's all about the tactile impression of the ice-cold bottle.

Or, check here for a look at how soda bottle shapes *defined* the different products for consumers.
http://imprint.printmag.com/branding...ing-evolution/

Product design is as much a serious discipline as any architectural or engineering branch and, commercially speaking, just as important.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

Perhaps apple copied the design, might just be - but I think it's not really worth protection in the first place. It can easily be coincidence.

The red dot on the end of the second hand of the iconic Swiss design would be an unlikely coincidence.

This one seems to be a pretty clear gaffe. A trademarked design has been used without licence. The reparations will be made (and someone's desk is likely to be empty at Cupertino this evening).

Interestingly, a clock app has been available in the App Store since 2009 which also uses the design, but with permission:

SBB owns the copyright to the clock. Originally it was designed by Hans Hilfiker in 1944. Today, the clock is among the most famous Swiss design icons.

Back in 2009, developer Thomas Feger launched a clock App with Hilfiker’s design. He had SBB’s permission. Feger calls Apple’s move «brass.» He believes that company was inspired by his App.

Graham

[pdurrant]

Google search links certainly aren't absolute. But if you scroll through a few pages, you'll see lots of numberless clock faces.

The Microsoft one clearly isn't a copy. The minute marks are dots, not lines, the marks and hands are thinner, and the second hand isn't red and doesn't have the distinctive shape.

For those who haven't looked at the article, here are the Apple and the Swiss Railway clocks.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taustin

Trademarks have to be actively defended. If you find out someone is infringing, and you don't do anything about it, you can easily lose the trademark. This is the reason for so many stupid and offensive cease & desist letters from lawyers.

As happened with trademarks like "Aspirin". It wasn't defended in the US, and lost its trademark status as a result. (It is still a trademark in Europe)

[pdurrant]

I think the most surprising thing, apart from someone at Apple making the mistake of thinking the design was public domain, is that it's been copied badly. The minute marks are a bit thin, the five minute marks are a bit thick, the hands are all a bit short, and the minute and hour hands are the same thickness as each other, and don't taper at all.

[QuantumIguana]

It had thought that Harley Davidson was successful in trademarking their engine noise. It turns out they dropped their trademark claim in 2000.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun...iness/fi-43145

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the most surprising thing, apart from someone at Apple making the mistake of thinking the design was public domain, is that it's been copied badly. The minute marks are a bit thin, the five minute marks are a bit thick, the hands are all a bit short, and the minute and hour hands are the same thickness as each other, and don't taper at all.

I prefer Apple's...

Andrew