Slashdot Mirror

> I don't see Coke suing Pepsi over the shape of their bottle.

You don't see Coke suing Pepsi over the shape of their bottle *headlined on slashdot* because slashdot is a us-centric tech news site which seldom features news about the sugared-water industry and because Pepsi has already been throughly slapped down in the US on the matter.

Worldwide, however, it's a different story. To this day, in other jurisdictions Pepsi continues to try to glom onto Coke's designs:
http://ipwars.com/2010/10/22/coke-pepsi-and-the-shape-of-the-bottle/

And Coke continues to work, in those jurisdictions, to stop them.
http://class-99.blogspot.com/2010/10/real-thing-coke-sues-pepsi-over-bottle.html
http://www.managingip.com/Article/1450469/How-Coca-Cola-protects-its-rights-in-Asia.html?Print=true

The only difference is that this is less common in tech because until very recently, few people in the tech industry though design was important, the mainstream tech crowd liked to denigrate those who did, and large swaths of the tech crowd has had a preconceived "Let's find a reason, any reason, to mindlessly bash Apple." bias pretty much as long as Apple has been in business.

But like I said, outside of tech, trademarks, trade dress, and design patents have always been part of business as usual.

And just like Coke isn't trying to sue every manufacturer of sugared water everywhere, just the ones that shamelessly imitate its protected designs; Apple is not suing every cellphone manufacturer over every cellphone. They're just going after the specific manufacturers and specific models that bear an uncanny resemblance to the iPhone.

what to still watch out for: making Wild Fox available in the USA could be an infringing importation http://www.managingip.com/Article/2400437/Foreign-infringement-of-US-patents.html

Just read about it in the newspaper. (Daily Yomiuri, for me.)

Unfortunately, the on-line version leaves off a few things.

For instance, Kaneko's lawyer's pointed out that auto manufacturers would not "be punished if speeding became rampant." (Reported in the print news.)

Also, the on-line version doesn't mention that, "A revised Copyright Law that prohibits users from downloading such peer-to-peer file sharing software will come into force in January." (The last line of the print article.)

I think the print version of the Yomiuri may have been slightly off on that point... the sources I have seem to say the law is dealing with copyrighted works, not programs that can be used to download them. Copyright act amended

Japan Strengthens Copyright Law Basically, the new legal ground seems to be that downloading works protected by copyright without permission is now officially a crime, but they have to prove the defendent knew the file was not distributed legally. Up until now, prosecution has been mostly (if not completely?) uploaders. Nothing is being said about downloading the software itself.

If you want it from the original source, and you can read Japanese, this link has the text of the bill itself in PDF format. I have not translated it so I can't verify whether the English news sources are correct in their interpretation or not.

The problem isn't really patents per se

Not true. Patents and the patent system have very real costs associated associated with them. Not just the sticker price but the chilling effect and the "guilty until proven innocent" legal minefield.

Patent law can be useful, but it needs to be far more carefully controlled than it is right now.

There is very little scientific evidence for patent law being useful. Mostly it's just self-serving PTO handwaving. Did you know they spend huge sums of money on marketing themselves, sorry "awareness raising" (gack)? See Dutch PTO interview. Large areas of intellectual work are not covered by "IP" law (e.g. deciding where to site a business or domestic architectural design) and yet seem to get along just fine.

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

At the Australian University I work for, and I believe it is the same for all, the students retain the IP for any creative work they produce. This applies to both undergrad and postgrad students, but interestingly, does NOT apply to staff. However, a recent law suit saw an Academic sue the Univeristy he worked for over a patent realting to a drug he created. The court found in his favour stating that acedmics are empoyed to conduct research, and not to invent. From the judgment "...a duty to research does not carry with it a duty to invent". http://www.managingip.com/Article/1922287/Australian-court-highlights-university-patent-dangers.html/

Dont forget that in England, the Orange telecom company owns the color orange. BP owns a shade of green in Australia.

http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1321377

The proper term you're looking for is "exhaustion"

but again it doesn't apply here.

The courts have ruled that the patent owner has full control over how their patent is used regardless of "first sale".

In the United States, patent is a statutory right that grants the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling a patented invention

the well-established US legal doctrine of "first sale" [...] a fundamental of US personal property (or "chattel") law, whereby the purchaser within the United States of an article covered by a United States patent, or one that embodies a process covered by such a patent, has the same individual private property right to use and dispose of it as he or she enjoys with respect to a purchased article not covered by a viable US patent. These rights have been recognized by American courts since at least as early as the Supreme Court decision in Wilson v Simpson, 50 US (9 How) 109 (1850) and have been reiterated many times during the ensuing century and a half.

Yes it is, those EULA on sales are blocked by doctrine of first sale,

You completely misunderstand the doctrine of first sale. The doctrine of first sale ONLY applies if the article was sold unrestricted. That is clearly not the case here - these cartridges are sold on a restricted basis. Here is an article that describes this distinction.

http://www.managingip.com/?Page=10&PUBID=34&ISS=12 554&SID=471589&TYPE=20

In addition there is even more in regards to 'reconstruction under first sale. The key phrase is:

"The principles that allow a US buyer who purchased the patented article, free of any mutually agreed restriction, to repair, modify, resell or otherwise dispose of it, but preclude him or her from recreating or rebuilding the original article flow naturally from the first sale doctrine."

So it is very obvious that this ruling is NOT something new at all and actually follows from the long existing first sale doctrine as applied to patented articles. In addition the EULA applies a restriction on the item, making this opinion even more sound under existing law.

The concept that this is something new under law is baloney. The only thing new is its application to printer cartridges.

US Patents: First sale exhaustion clarified