4 ms·
That's absurd, it can look the same and still be a crappy product that has issues like the battery blowing up. The consumer might not know the difference betwee
by carlosdp 11y ago
That's absurd, it can look the same and still be a crappy product that has issues like the battery blowing up. The consumer might not know the difference between your board and the lower quality one that looks the same on the outside, and when news goes around with a picture of a board that looks exactly like yours, it hurts your product's sales.
- voltagex_ 11y agoThat's exactly what happened in Australia [0] It's definitely made me re-evaluate some of my AliBaba purchases - I don't think insurance will cover you if your house is burnt down by something that doesn't comply to Australian safety standards. [0]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hoverboard-safety-concerns/7072608 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hove...
- rconti 11y agoI would be very surprised if there was such an exclusion, and if it were enforceable.
- dkbrk 11y agoComplying with relevant standards is a completely orthogonal issue to that of novelty and patentability. The question at hand is whether patents should protect products that are insufficiently novel to prevent it being cloned by a competitor. In my opinion, if a person technically competent in the appropriate fields could produce an equivalent design by having the product's functionality described to them then it should not be patentable. This also takes care of such idiocy as the Amazon one-click-buy patent, which is a simple matter to implement once given a description of its functionality.
- kalleboo 11y agoThat's what trademark and trade dress is for.