'you can’t patent curved glass'

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

What exactly is worth protecting about that design?

What exactly is worth protecting about the design of a tablet in a form of rectangle with rounded corners? Ha?!?

If you look more closely at all those patents and design patents that Apple uses tu sue their competitors, most of those are TOTAL rubbish that should never have been patented.

You see, we have some nice proverbs here:
"Who sows wind will harvest storm."
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."

So, I very much hope that the Swiss company sues Apple and gets injunction that prohibits selling Apple devices in Europe and wins 1 thousand million(*) euro punitive damages!

(*) one billion has different meaning in USA and different in Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by kacir

What exactly is worth protecting about the design of a tablet in a form of rectangle with rounded corners? Ha?!?

Don't ask me.
I'm certainly not defending apple here. I'm saying the system (patent, trademark, design flavor, whatever) is ridiculous.
The flat rectangular block with rounded corners is the evolution of the design for cell phones/mobile computer just as the numberless clock with enhanced 5-minute steps (and marked minutes) is the "natural" most basic look of a clock without numbers.

The seconds hand itself is, in my opinion, not really enough to claim it's a unique design.
I'd believe apple if they said that it is a coincidence.

[edit]Serious request - could someone link a numberless clock design that is different from that above? I re-checked the link, but all I see are clocks that use the same principle - marking each minute, specially marking five-minutes or perhaps 15 minutes.

[fjtorres]

And what about the rest of the clock face?
The red circle on the second hand, the length and aspect of the minute and hour hand?
The colors.
It's easily to deride design when you factor out but one of the elements that make it unique.
Design patents and trademarks are for the *entire* design combination, not specific individual elements. The individual pieces are fair game; the *whole* is not.
Is that so frakking hard to accept?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

The seconds hand itself is, in my opinion, not really enough to claim it's a unique design.
I'd believe apple if they said that it is a coincidence.

[edit]Serious request - could someone link a numberless clock design that is different from that above? I re-checked the link, but all I see are clocks that use the same principle - marking each minute, specially marking five-minutes or perhaps 15 minutes.

The second hand of the clock is the realy obvious bit, but the weight, size and shape of the marks and hands is also obviously (badly) copied.

As for your other request:
http://www.englishstamp.com/stock_cl...47_18.aspx?cp=
http://www.helpingwithmath.com/print...md2hours01.htm
http://www.clker.com/clipart-clock-face-no-hands-.html
http://www.canstockphoto.com/numberl...-10127646.html
http://www.etsy.com/listing/10770189...eeded-clock-23
http://www.myadventureisyouradvantag...tsukamoto.html
http://designapplause.com/2012/osio-...gf-2012/29071/
http://www.zazzle.com/color_crescent...31955213641174
http://www.zazzle.com/black_and_whit...15461852024849
http://www.proleno.com/shop/stainles...all-clock.html
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-fr...s-image9495155
http://www.dwell.com/products/12-Clock12-Clock.html
http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/...no-numbers.asp
http://www.watchmann.com/junghansmaxbillwatches.asp
http://blog.proleno.com/2011/02/dist...re-wall-clock/

There are many, many ways to design a clock face without numbers.

[Cyberman tM]

Apart from the red circle on the seconds hand, what is special about the hands? Why is the length/width ratio important?
Would it be OK if someone copied the design and shorted the hands a bit? It's different then, isn't it?

What if you leave off the seconds hand? Like this: http://www.blickwinkel.de/archive/BLWS062319

There is no seconds hand and the colors are completely different. This means it's a revolutionary different design?

Maybe apple copied the design - but perhaps it was a coincidence. Perhaps the designer half-remembered seeing the original clock.

I still don't think the design, with or without the seconds hand is worth protecting.
It's too basic for that.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

There are many, many ways to design a clock face without numbers.

If you count every little deviation, sure.
Most of these clocks look quite similar - they all use the same principle, some use long line/short line, others use dots. But basically they're all the same.

These are rather unique, IMO:
http://www.etsy.com/listing/10770189...eeded-clock-23
http://designapplause.com/2012/osio-...gf-2012/29071/
http://www.dwell.com/products/12-Clock12-Clock.html

It's still the same principle, but at least they thought for longer than just "do we use lines or dots?".


What if someone copied the SBB clock and painted the background yellow, the hands red and the seconds hand white.
Different or just the same?

[Ntsimp]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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)

Actually, the true story is more interesting. The US trademark on Aspirin was stripped away as part of war reparations following World War I.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

Apart from the red circle on the seconds hand, what is special about the hands? Why is the length/width ratio important?
Would it be OK if someone copied the design and shorted the hands a bit? It's different then, isn't it?

What if you leave off the seconds hand? Like this: http://www.blickwinkel.de/archive/BLWS062319

There is no seconds hand and the colors are completely different. This means it's a revolutionary different design?

It is possible to point to minor differences in individual features, but the overall effect is clear. Apple's design for the clock face is clearly a copy of the swiss design.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Apple's design for the clock face is clearly a copy of the swiss design.

I'm not trying to argue that it isn't. (Though I would believe them if they said it was an accident.)
Not sure how to put it - the design just looks too "basic" for me. Apart from the seconds hand, everything looks like a basic watch face to me.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

I'm not trying to argue that it isn't. (Though I would believe them if they said it was an accident.)
I'm arguing that the design itself isn't worth protecting, as it doesn't contain enough unique or "non-basic" design.

It is an 84-year old design so when the mark was awarded it could easily have been unique then.
More importantly, trademarks (unlike patents) don't *have* to be unique or non-obvious; they merely have to be distinctive and serve as an identifier for the specific company/product.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And what about the rest of the clock face?
The red circle on the second hand, the length and aspect of the minute and hour hand?
The colors.
It's easily to deride design when you factor out but one of the elements that make it unique.
Design patents and trademarks are for the *entire* design combination, not specific individual elements. The individual pieces are fair game; the *whole* is not.
Is that so frakking hard to accept?

including apple. you have to add other design elements to those rounder corners to make it infringe.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by kacir

So, I very much hope that the Swiss company sues Apple and gets injunction

I think they said they would happily extend a license to them.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

I'm not trying to argue that it isn't. (Though I would believe them if they said it was an accident.)
Not sure how to put it - the design just looks too "basic" for me. Apart from the seconds hand, everything looks like a basic watch face to me.

The clock design seems to have more distinguishing factors to me than ipod or ipad designs have in terms of how they physically look. If Apple can be so picky about what constitutes copying of their tablet and handheld designs, they should have no trouble acknowledging that their clock design is a copy of the Swiss one. So, I think the argument here is about Apple's consistency.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rkomar

So, I think the argument here is about Apple's consistency.

Or lack there-of.
Apple's approach has long been "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable".
Just ask Cisco.

[mgmueller]

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.

Mercedes and BMW have entire departments, designing the "new smell" of the interior or the sound of the engine. Even the slap of the door! I guess that's true for all high-end (=expensive) cars. I don't think, they would be able to sue because of "similar smell". But this effort shows: Such ridiculous stuff obviously is worth investing heavily.

[ScotiaBurrell]

mg, if new at conception, and consumers like it, there should be some protection.