3 ms·

Actually it doesn't have a single thing to do with copyright as it isn't a creative work, it's solely under a patent. As long as he doesn't go around calling it

Actually it doesn't have a single thing to do with copyright as it isn't a creative work, it's solely under a patent. As long as he doesn't go around calling it a "Lamborghini Countach" he isn't breaking any trademark laws. Finally a patent only extends to cover something that is in itself patentable. Nintendo is taking forever to get patents on it's DS game cartridges because they're based off of an SD card. If its not found to be useful or inventive then it's not patentable. Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable. Vehicle patents are very complicated to enforce, namely because if anyone ever tries to enforce one they can actually end up getting it invalidated (which in patent law, abolition happens more than enforcement). Lamborghini might not be able to enforce a single patent because a court might find it an obvious improvement over Henry Ford's original patent or is outright patent infringement of Fords. It's a serious lose-lose business.

ken 18y ago
> Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. I would guess Lamborghini is one of the few that does. Look up "design patent" in wikipedia: "a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item". If the shape and components of a top sports car don't meet this description, it's hard to imagine what would. In fact, it's not too hard to find automobile patents, e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ (DeLorean) or http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ (Lotus?) -- but these patents seem to have a 14-year term, so even if Lamborghini did patent this shape, the patent (at least in the USA) has probably expired by now.
- ken 18y ago
  Followup: looks like the Countach is http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ -- patent number D324007, granted Feb 18, 1992 to Chrysler for a period of 14 years.
  - hugh 18y ago
    Well, that's interesting. Looking further into it, the Countach had been built since 1974, but they never applied for this US design patent until Lamborghini was bought by Chrysler in 1989. By 1992, when it was actually granted, the Countach had already been discontinued. Wait... looking at the pictures again, I'm pretty sure that's actually the Lamborghini Diablo -- that would make more sense with respect to the timing, since it was made from 1990 to 2001.
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  Well I suppose most sports car designs do fall into unique looks, so I understand how they'd be able to patent the exterior design, but the machine inside would likely never hold up in court. If the guy had built an old sedan he wouldn't have a worry in the world about the exterior design as the amount of chassis sharing between companies they're all inherently the same. I do believe you're right though, the patents on the 'ornamental design' seem valid, but as you stated virtually any vehicle design patent seems invalid if it was made before 1994. I'm wondering if vehicle manufacturers allow these patents to die off after 14 years to allow people to rebuild classics. I mean what would the public reaction be like if Ford sued someone for patent infringement because they fixed up a classic Mustang and couldn't get all the Ford manufactured parts.
antiismist 18y ago
There are lots of patents on car parts, for example intermittent wipers or a way of connecting the door to the frame of the car. I'm pretty sure Lamborghini has a few patents like that around.
dpatru 18y ago
> Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable. Just because an invention is re-invented, or invented independently more or less at the same time, does not mean it is unpatentable, obvious, or that an already granted patent is invalid. At most it is evidence of obviousness.
- antiismist 18y ago
  In fact rediscovery can be indicative of utility of the patent, which is a requirement too.

ken 18y ago

> Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. I would guess Lamborghini is one of the few that does. Look up "design patent" in wikipedia: "a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item". If the shape and components of a top sports car don't meet this description, it's hard to imagine what would. In fact, it's not too hard to find automobile patents, e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ (DeLorean) or http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ (Lotus?) -- but these patents seem to have a 14-year term, so even if Lamborghini did patent this shape, the patent (at least in the USA) has probably expired by now.

ken 18y ago
Followup: looks like the Countach is http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ -- patent number D324007, granted Feb 18, 1992 to Chrysler for a period of 14 years.
- hugh 18y ago
  Well, that's interesting. Looking further into it, the Countach had been built since 1974, but they never applied for this US design patent until Lamborghini was bought by Chrysler in 1989. By 1992, when it was actually granted, the Countach had already been discontinued. Wait... looking at the pictures again, I'm pretty sure that's actually the Lamborghini Diablo -- that would make more sense with respect to the timing, since it was made from 1990 to 2001.
electromagnetic 18y ago
Well I suppose most sports car designs do fall into unique looks, so I understand how they'd be able to patent the exterior design, but the machine inside would likely never hold up in court. If the guy had built an old sedan he wouldn't have a worry in the world about the exterior design as the amount of chassis sharing between companies they're all inherently the same. I do believe you're right though, the patents on the 'ornamental design' seem valid, but as you stated virtually any vehicle design patent seems invalid if it was made before 1994. I'm wondering if vehicle manufacturers allow these patents to die off after 14 years to allow people to rebuild classics. I mean what would the public reaction be like if Ford sued someone for patent infringement because they fixed up a classic Mustang and couldn't get all the Ford manufactured parts.

antiismist 18y ago

There are lots of patents on car parts, for example intermittent wipers or a way of connecting the door to the frame of the car. I'm pretty sure Lamborghini has a few patents like that around.

dpatru 18y ago

> Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable. Just because an invention is re-invented, or invented independently more or less at the same time, does not mean it is unpatentable, obvious, or that an already granted patent is invalid. At most it is evidence of obviousness.

antiismist 18y ago
In fact rediscovery can be indicative of utility of the patent, which is a requirement too.