Exactly this.
Seems like an honest error. When called on it, Apple did the right thing and paid the money they owed.
This is how the system is supposed to work.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Licenses Swiss Railway Clock Design for iPad's iOS 6 Clock App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly this.
Seems like an honest error. When called on it, Apple did the right thing and paid the money they owed.
This is how the system is supposed to work.
You mean like Rolex did with Samsung?
Rollei – Swiss watch battle
Samsung Techwin acquired a German camera-maker Rollei on 1995. Samsung (Rollei) used its optic expertise on the crystals of a new line of 100% Swiss-made watches, designed by a team of watchmakers at Nouvelle Piquerez S.A. in Bassequort, Switzerland. Rolex's decision to fight Rollei on every front stemmed from the close resemblance between the two names and fears that its sales would suffer as a consequence. In the face of such a threat, the Geneva firm decided to confront. This was also a demonstration of the Swiss watch industry's determination to defend itself when an established brand is threatened. Rolex sees this front-line battle as vital for the entire Swiss watch industry. Rolex has succeeded in keeping Rollei out of the German market. On 11 March 1995 the Cologne District court prohibited the advertising and sale of Rollei watches on German territory.[44][45]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Advanced_Institute_of_Technology
The swiss take their time seriously!
Last edited by a moderator:
This is incorrect. As evidence, I present the endless variety of minimalist design from the 20th Century.
Also, it is very difficult to determine what is essential and what can be removed. (Why did they leave the small tick marks? Why did they need a second hand? Why red? Why is there a circle on the end?)
EDIT: And this clock isn't minimalist at all.
You mean like Rolex did with Samsung?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Advanced_Institute_of_Technology
The swiss take their time seriously!
yes, everywhere you go in S'land you see that clock in the train stations.
apple deserves to be punished because it is hypocritical and/or incompetent.
My brother teaches mentally handicapped adults and he thought it would be fun to have them make Pollock'esque paintings. Long story short they hung the people's paintings with a real Pollock and while you could tell that some weren't a Pollock you couldn't tell which one was.
What gallery? How'd they get their hands on a Pollock? Who couldn't tell the difference - could they name any modern or contemporary painters at all or were they completely ignorant about what they were evaluating? I call BS (and the implication that people with disabilities can't make good art is a nice bit of prejudice).
Well if you look closely at the "Apple's copy" its not entirely exact. I'd hate to be pedantic but every single proportion is different, so that tells me a lot! Means that apple UI designer tried to get away with using this unlicensed, but they obviously failed so had to pay in the end. Its an imitation of the Swiss design...similar how apple imitates Canon camera in the iPhoto icon. In this case, because they now paid for a license they should change the proportions so that it matches, because the design just doesn't look as nice compared to official.
And that's not in the slightest what actually happened. Apple didn't "owe" anything. This was a case of risk and expense abatement, pure and simple. SBB and Apple both had reasonable claims: SBB that they had a protectible mark that Apple was infringing, and Apple that they were using the design legally for one of various reasons (see my earlier post in this thread). Both parties knew there was a risk of an adverse outcome if they went to court; both were willing to spend a little now (Apple with a licensing offer, SBB presumably by charging less than they would have in the wake of a court judgment) to settle the matter. Win-win.
Again, this isn't like Samsung where their internal emails showed they were very aware that they were infringing IP that wasn't theirs and exploiting it to the greatest extent they could, risking what turned out to be the eventual outcome.
It's exact enough for IP purposes. Whatever else might have been at issue in this case, Apple's usage WAS that of the design that SBB asserted ownership of.
Apple fans:
When Apple blatantly copies a design - no big deal.
When a smartphone is rectangular just like the iPhone - blasphemy!
I'm glad they've licensed the design though, that's fair play.
When Apple blatantly copies a design - no big deal.
When a smartphone is rectangular just like the iPhone - blasphemy!
I'm glad they've licensed the design though, that's fair play.
I love Apple and it's products. However it does annoy me when they blatantly copy something and wait until someone moans, rather than licence it in the first place.
Absolutely, i think i heard there is a rule of thumb - 30%. If you change 30% you might get away with it. But this is way too close..
----------
UPS trademarked panton colour Brown!
Yes but art and music is exempt from this rule, you cant copyright an Idea for a painting! Neither can you copyright a melody. Only lyrics, photograph, physical recording etc
Last edited by a moderator:
you're confusing trademark, patents and copyright
----------
the winners as always the lawyers who charge outrageous fees.
the loser are all of the other people/companies/etc with designs, IP, etc that apple has ripped off, plagiarized, copied and those people are too small to stand up to apple.
apple's montra seems to be, if you can get away with it, do it. don't worry about searching databases.
----------
from USPTO
What is a trademark or service mark?
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet, the terms "trademark" and "mark" refer to both trademarks and service marks.
A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work;
a patent protects an invention, design and/or utility
It doesn't matter if Apple has billions in reserve. Apple doesn't need this expenditure. It's pure waste for an aesthetic consumers don't really care about.
Doesn't need it?
Apple is required to pay it.
It's like saying Apple doesn't need to pay its employees - it's a pure waste for an ethical issue consumers don't really care about.
Uh, Apple doesn't need to pay its employees if Apple doesn't have any, just like Apple isn't required to pay this licensing fee if they aren't licensing the design - they could have made an alternative design. Relax.
