5 ms·
That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge: Trade dress is the wo
by Xuzz 14y ago
That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge:
Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
- Tobu 14y agoThis kind of legal weapon is just emerging, and it's a product of circumstance — patent offices have rubberstamped hundreds of Apple's bevelled rectangles, and Apple recently found a court that would act on it and delay sales. It's a bit early to say lawyers have it all figured out, and that we should shut up and listen to them. Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
- Retric 14y agoIf by 'new' you mean 1946 then sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
- Tobu 14y agoThat's trademarks, which so far have been more faithful to their stated goal of preventing consumer confusion, rather than creating new kinds of private property. For example, I don't need Apple's permission to use the trademarked word Apple, as long as I'm referring to the firm, or as long as I'm not using it in the context of electronics or music.
- Xuzz 14y agoAgain, Nilay Patel at The Verge (maybe read the article? http://theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ http://theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/): Trade dress law is well-established, and Apple itself has a history of successfully pursuing trade dress claims in the Northern District of California. In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power for knocking off the iMac's trade dress, winning injunctions in both cases and eventually getting extremely restrictive settlements that effectively removed the infringing products from the marketplace. The eOne: http://lowendmac.com/imac/eone.shtml http://lowendmac.com/imac/eone.shtml Article about the case: http://zdnetasia.com/apple-stops-sales-of-imac-knockoffs-13026345.htm http://zdnetasia.com/apple-stops-sales-of-imac-knockoffs-130...
- Tobu 14y agoThe 2011 case featured in the Verge bundles trade dress claims, that have been enforced in the past with a less simple and much more distinctive look, with design patents, which I'm not aware Apple has been able to enforce before. The other one we discussed is for a European “community design”, something which was created (sorry, “harmonised”) in 2002, and those extremely simple shapes were registered by Apple in 2010: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001 http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-00018160... Here is what makes community designs a step up from other roadblocks against competitors: http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was_Bad/page1/ http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_y...