Mobile phones & tablets thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You're confusing trademarking with patenting again.

---

LOL. Did you even check his link. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Ricecookers are domestic appliances.

Computers are computers.

These are entirely different industrial sectors....

---

They might be a different industry, however the idea and the implementation is the same. It looks to me that you aren't really getting the simplest things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

Who ever said that "nothing" would be able to be patented?. The discussions is about that some things are not innovative enough
to warrant a patent, especially if you did not invent it in the first place.

---

Exactly. Whatever has been already invented shouldn't be allowed to be patented by someone who claims that they re-invented it.
In teh end it's all about common sense, or lack of it due to never imagined levels of greed combined with unbelievable levels of stupidity in today's society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

This discussion has remained heated but mature so far ioan. Lets not ruin it.

---

Ahem! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

James Dyson innovated a dual cyclone technology used in large scale extractors and applied it to a vacuum cleaner. No other vacuum cleaner manufacturer had done that before and he protected himself within that industry. He didn't invent the cyclone but was innovative enough to apply it to a totally different application. The design wasn't copied, it was the idea that was. Other vacuum cleaner manufacturers tried to copy it (most notably Hoover) and were sued for many millions of pounds. He patented his use of the idea and opened it up in later years once he had dominated the market using that technology. This example is no different to mobile companies applying ideas within their sector and this method has been used since products have been called products. Innovation has always been protected whether its an invention or not. Innovating something also demands as much respect as inventing something because it all goes towards the same goal. I have one patent to my name, but I have ripped off many other unprotected inventions in my time. Its how it works. :)

---

Funnily enough I was thinking of Dyson too because he had to go through a legal nightmare to protect his patents and his brand identity.

He was on the radio the other day talking about how he had to sue any vacuum cleaner maker that had started to use clear plastic and bold bright colours on their machines to protect his brand. He was pretty blunt about the need to be aggressive in protecting his investment but I guess you could flip it around and say he was trying to monopolise purple, green and yellow....

Its just par for the course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They might be a different industry, however the idea and the implementation is the same. It looks to me that you aren't really getting the simplest things.

---

Try telling that to the patents office. What you or I think is irrelevant. This is how the system works globally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

The trademark is the same thing basically. You cannot trademark/copyright basic shapes like a rectangular piece of metallic or plastic with a rectangular
or quadratic display since that is how mobile phones have looked like the past 15-20 years or so. Not to mention TVs.

---

This is utterly wrong.

I have an HTC Sensation. This is clearly part of the same family as the Desire before and the One X after. In fact all HTC Android phones share a similar design language so that you know they are from the same family.

Equally Apple have a strong design language for their iPhones. You may not be able to tell which particular model it is at first glance but you'd be lying if you told me you couldn't tell it was an Apple.

Sony have introduced a 'thinner in the middle' design language. Again in the showroom they visibly differ from rivals.

Looking back 15-20 years and there was similar product differentiation. Ericsson used pastel colours. Sony's were predominantly silver/blue. Nokias were wider at the top and had very distinctive button shapes not to mention an instantly recognisable default ringtone. All were instantly recognisable as being from particular brands.

Not only are the differences obvious to the casual observer but they are recognised by trademark offices around the world where designs are submitted months and years before launch (the link Daniel gave for the Apple iPad trademark application predates the actual launch by 5 years) and rejected if too obviously similar to an existing competing product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

We don't seem to mind when car companies and vacuum cleaner manufacturers do it, but the passion surrounding Apple pro or against seems to have suggested its somehow a special case. Its not :)

---

I agree.

I'm surprised some here aren't going nuts about Cadburys vs the Vatican's official chocolate maker that lost a legal case to carry on using Imperial purple to wrap its chocolates used in religious services. Cadburys vs God, surely that should ruffle a few feathers no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

We don't seem to mind when car companies and vacuum cleaner manufacturers do it, but the passion surrounding Apple pro or against seems to have suggested its somehow a special case. Its not :)

---

Sure sure. So when did anyone try to patent the general shape of car? Or the number of wheels? Or the number of the doors?! And so on...
It's people who think like you who make such nonsense patenting reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

I agree.

I'm surprised some here aren't going nuts about Cadburys vs the Vatican's official chocolate maker that lost a legal case to carry on using Imperial purple to wrap its chocolates used in religious services. Cadburys vs God, surely that should ruffle a few feathers no?

---

Well that's just another example of complete lack of common sense.