Slashdot Mirror
iMac Look Protected by Copyright
The settlements mean that the preliminary injunction granted by a Federal judge last November, which halted sales of the Emachines eOne on the grounds that it too closely resembled the industrial design of Apple's iMac, may be a taste of the future.
Apple's focus in these suites has been on violations of their "trade dress" -- essentially, seeking copyright which covers the appearance and design of a product rather than its functional aspect. The CNET article points out that "[h]istorically, the courts have not extended trademark protection to a product's design, but more recently, some have begun to grant trademark protection to 'stylized' items on the grounds that novel industrial design can communicate a distinctive idea or image."
Often, however, manufacturers file design patents as well, especially for products with new or unique industrial design. Given Apple's emphasis on ergonomics, color and ease of use, which concretize the abstract results of years of experimentation and testing, it seems likely that design patents will play an expanding role in the protection of their designs. But by no means will Apple be the only company fighting to establish brand identity with distinctive shapes and colors, and taking on imitators in court over trade dress or design patent violations.
dublin (the person who submitted this article) notes, "This could be ugly, because unlike regular patents (which can be readily challenged on the following grounds), design patents have no requirement for either 'utility' or 'non-obviousness to one reasonably schooled in the art.'" Can challenging or affirming a design patent, especially in the moving-target world of personal computers, be anything other than heavily subjective?
Even if the original decision was jutified, (no one is arguing that either the eOne or the Daewoo machines are based on anything other than the shape and color-appeal of the iMac), does this place us on a slippery slope? As dublin puts it, "Does Apple now have universal first dibs on anything wrapped in clear and aqua plastic? (If yes, then how about lime or the dreaded tangerine?)"
Actually, this threat to society has been long recognized in some circles.
Bill Griffith has regularly ranted against the "cutification" of everything through his alter-ego (vs alter-id) "Griffy" in the "Zippy the Pinhead comics".
He notes that this is particularly virulent in Japaneese consumer culture. (See "Hello Kitty")
YHBT. YHL. HAND :)
Okay then seeing as you're off out I'll come clean. I'm trolling, not being serious. And I'm from London myself not America. It's amazing how easy it is to act like a US-centric ignorant wanker though :) Sorry for the troll, but it's about the only thing to do at work and there wasn't any stories today I thought worth posting something sensible to. Thanks for being reasonable though.
--spiralx
RSA is patented, but its patent will soon expire. Do you think that it is useless?
Quite a few arcade games from the early- to late-80s used a large translucent blue joystick. And if you remember, the combination coin-slot and coin return button was translucent red and sometimes even lit!
if these pc clones had an apple logo on it, and ran macos i could see apples argument
these clones are in no way claiming to be imacs, they use real operating systems, and have real computer hardware in them INCLUDING FLOPPY DRIVES
these are not the fisher price toys that apple produces
apple should REWARD these companies for making computers that look like apples but run like real computers
if anybody saw one of these clones and thought it was an imac it would be the best thing that could possibly happen for apples pr dept because they would think "hey apple has changed, theyre making real computers now!"
apple is just pissed because the rest of the computer industry wont go away
I've have begun to wonder the same thing. If M.A.C. was to play by its own rules, WHAT on earth would they sell? Maybe just a big IMAC witout any software? They sure couldn't sell a monitor with their MACs, they didn't invent it. I suppose they could include a switching powersupply, the Apple ][ was the first home computer to use one. Keyboard, nope... mouse, nope... doesn't leave much does it. Get with it, MAC.
I seriously doubt the Coca-Cola bottle shape was a copy of something else out there. The iMac is based on quite a few things: the Rowenta blue & white iron, a two-tone blue & white terminal from the late 1970s, the original Macintosh (which is from the Apple Lisa, which is a copy of the DEC VT-100 terminal), and some of the see-thru items of the time (such as see-thru watches and the like). This is a sad day for justice. We finally let that strange, uncoordinated kid join our basketball game... we helped him make a basket, and now he's jumping around kicking us all shouting "WOOOHOOO, I'm better than you all!!". Thanks Apple, Thanks.
I'm still living in the twentieth. What planet do you live on?
The old Lear-Siegler ADM-3 looks a lot like an iMac. It usually came in two tone blue, but I saw some that were brown. The first time I saw an iMac I said it sure looks like an LSI ADM-3.
imagine if you can't copyright designs... Then every single car on the highway is going to start looking exactly like Ferrari's, Porsches, Diablos, ... :-)
Actually, you have that backwards... if car makers were all like Apple, there would be so many lawsuits that you would only find a couple slow, overpriced cars on the road. Companies would be suing over "4 wheels", "doors", "steering wheel", etc. It would be a sad, sad world.
Apple has NO CHOISE but to go after those who would violate it's trademarks. Nor does anyone else who produces intellectual property.
BULL! Apple does have a choice! And they are making it somewhat... do you see them suing companies that are making speakers shaped like, and the same color as their iMac "flavors"? No, because those little speakers help their iMac. Sickening. Apple needs to learn to grow up. Look at Silicon Graphics for example (the old, pre-1999 SGI)... they had a very classy look with granite monitors, keyboards, mice, speakers, as well as unique cases for their computers. Did they copy anyone? Not that I can tell? Did anyone sue? I sure didn't hear about it. Did they sue anyone? Nope. Apple is the playground dork who ran into some money and is trying to out-bully the bullies as well as the nice kids with glasses. Personally, I'm waiting for the lawsuit against Apple that'll knock it back down to their 1995 level.
mortified and stupified. This is a waste of the taxpayers' money...
What's even sadder is that I think you actually believe the shit you just posted.
>Companies would be suing over "4 wheels", "doors", "steering wheel", etc.
You mean like Apple is sueing all those other computer maker for including harddrives, monitors, and keyboards. Oh, wait they are only in your shitbrained head.
What a pathetic little fuck.
> Jobs has a fanatical drive for excellence, and quality.
Not to mention theft of ideas.
> The iMac is no accident or fluke.
Yes, he took the engineering that was done under Gil and re-packaged it.
Your US-centricity is not only risible, but laughable as well...how can you respond to a post in which I say that I am English by writing "The success of that company still helps you as an American citizen"?
Because your post said absolutely nothing about you being English, guvnor. How on Earth am I supposed to deduce this from thin air? Although given your socialist leanings I probably should have worked it out. I'm sorry if you find the US-centric nature of /. offensive, but it is your choice to participate here and so you haven chosen to accept the prevaling view here.
I have personal against the rest of the world, but America is the greatest nation on Earth and other countries look to it for moral and economic guidance. This is not just my opinion, it is a fact. England may once have ruled half of the world, but nowadays it is like a toothless old man, endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire when being English was something to be proud of. Today America is the leader of the world and England looks to it for guidance and protection, which we gladly supply because that is our moral duty.
If the nice ppl at Mac would spend more time making a quality product instead of making up some stupid law suit ever month ...then the world would be a better place .. i mean first the threat made on the theme that had the apple icon in it now the box!
The apple is their trademark. They have to defend it. Aside from this, when someone puts the apple on a product, that implies that the product came from Apple. If the product is a piece of crap, that makes Apple look bad.
i wonder if dairy farmers are going to sue because somone made that cow cover case for there pc ?
Probably not, but if you sold computers with Elsie the cow painted on the side, you can bet Borden would be on your ass (rightfully so) in an instant.
Seriously though, if Apple would just put more effort into what's in the box, instead of making retro electro-gumdrop machines, they wouldn't have to worry about companies copying their case design.
And if the strategy of simply selling technically superior equipment worked, the Amiga would have killed off x86 in the 80's. Based on the sales of the iMac, lots of people just don't care, as long as the computer is adequate and 'neat'. Apple put a lot of money into making the iMac 'neat'. They have a right to protect their investment.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
High priced stuff for a select few? You don't have an argument, but you'll pretend you have one by making stuff up.
The iMac is one of the most popular computers today. I don't know how many millions Apple has sold - unless you consider millions of units "a select few"
I'm sorry for making fun of your post but here is the story retold in as simple a way possible for you:
Apple spend much money on a new design for a Mac
Design is wildly popular - it sells a lot.
Apple makes lots of money.
PC clone makers want money too.
PC clone marketing person states that they want to try fool people into thinking their computer is an iMac.
PC clone maker makes computer that looks just like an iMac.
PC clone maker get their asses sued by Apple.
Apple wins, you loose.
End of story.
yeah, too bad ford owns jaguar...
Actually, all things considered:
In 2000 the PPC still sucks. It has some theoretical advantages but still loses out to PIII's and K7's that can be scaled up to twice the PPC's top clockrate and also to other RISC cpus.
My roommate calls this the "bubblization" of our culture. He's made a list of all the products (the iMac, Beetle, etc.) to become "bubblized"
Volkswagon
Volkswagen.
All Apple currently has is a case and a shitload of marketing hype and attorneys. They have nothing else. They needed to patent that case, otherwise they would be left with a load of expensive marketing execs and attorneys with nothing to do.
Even OS/X is nothing more than Unix with a nice GUI on top. Apple does a nice GUI. It used to bring them some distinction. Nice GUI, nice box, nice marketing, nasty attorneys. They are creatively dead.
So, obviously consumer confusion isn't the real issue.
They want a questionable monopoly on a particular type of look.
I have often thought that the worst thing about a Macintosh is the fact that it's associated with Apple Corp.
Hrm so witch pop mfgr was the first with alluminum cans? guess they can make some mad loot, how about all the newest cars looking So damn similar... or maybe the people whofirst put pockets on the legs of pants... this is copy wighting a color.. i call the primaries.. =)
don't forget apple did not invent the gui. apple ripped the idea off from xerox. apple also ripped off the ideas for the pizza-box design and the tower design. of course, apple tried to sue MS over the gui. apple tries to sue everybody over everything. and often, apple is successful.
This is clearly NOT a case of protecting the facilities that encourage creativity. The general dissent expressed here is merely the intuitive grasp of the fact that this is a case of real 'IP abuse' where the law is used to encourage hoarding and avoidance of free market competition.
Ha ha ha. The Apple attorneys missed that one !
unimpressed. apple ripped off the idea for the gui, the pizza-box case, and the tower case. now apple is basing their new os on bsd (i don't think apple invented unix). apple sues everybody over anything and everything. apple tried to sue ms over the gui, and apple didn't even invent the gui.
What's this? The CS part of University of Toronto is trying to pass itself off as an American .edu? I wonder if there is a similar utoronto.ca link to this CS server?
Ah, the Canadian inferiority complex. Our universities are only "valuable" if they have the same domain suffix as Harvard!
Unrestricted corporate power essentially equates into feudalism. Personally, I like my liberties and would rather not have them stripped or abused by large government OR large business. They are a force that needs to be checked just like everything else.
This notion that Limited Liability Entities should be free to rape and pillage for fear of a minor economic slowdown is simply absurd. It isn't even effective 'bad rhetoric'.
Labor Unions are the reason you have a decent standard of living to speak of.
Business COWERING behind the federal government simply does not reflect the image of the traditional American business man. If that is what the modern American business has been reduced to then it's not something worth protecting anymore.
Ohioan and Yankee.
>Even OS/X is nothing more than Unix with a nice GUI on top.
Uh, dumbshit, what more could one ask for? Didn't really think that one through before typing did you. Or would you perfer a mediocre unix clone with a shitty interface like Linux.
Ever seen a grown computer user drool over just the thought of an OS like people do when even mentioning Mac OS X? Yeah, OS X is just Unix with a 'nice GUI.'
> Apple does a nice GUI
Uh, yeah. Apple's years of interface technology, can be summed up as "a nice GUI" Chuckle. No wonder Gnome and KDE are such turds.
Apple "creatively dead?" I love to see comments like this on slashdot. Deep down in every Linux fanatic's head is the nightmare vision of Steve Jobs with an iMac running OS X sitting next to your ugly computer shopper no case medicore Unix clone Linux box running your open source Win95 ripoff - and he is looking over and laughing at you.
Actually, at the rate that Apple is going GNU just might manage to release a production version of OpenStep first...
Actually, a Unix user is free to run a variety of 'ripoffs'. That's the nice thing about a free market in terms of ideas, rather than being restricted to what Baron Steve or Archduke Bill choose to spoonfeed you.
This means running pretty much what Apple has (a modified OpenStep) as well as those 'weak Win95 clones'.
The FSF does more than just gcc and emacs.
Well, you've told me. I mean your sarcastic remarks at the end of the post and your oh so harsh criticism of my spelling obviously proves that my views are wrong.
And of course the rest of the world exists. I'm not some redneck from the south who doesn't even believe California exists, let alone England. The rest of the world provides a vast market for American corporations to dominate and what I am saying is that we must ensure that this happens through legislation beneficial to US corporations. What else do you think the WTO is for? Why do you think we are being so nice to China at the moment?
And besides, England is America's best tool for dominating the world market. Now that your country is so dependent upon us for our money and culture your government does absolutely anything we ask you to. With England behind us the "European Union" will fail before it ever becomes a threat to US domination of the market.
Actually, calculators can be construed as computing machines. It could easily be stretched to that extreme in a courtroom. Add in a Russian engineer or two with some of the games they've programmed for calculators and you could probably be quite convincing to a mere judge.
Bzzt. One more time: You "lose" a game. Your pants are "loose" in the crotch.
> why I would never work for Apple
Uh, you're not smart enough.
People who get hired by Apple are REALLY, REALLY smart. You wouldn't make the cut.
But I'm sure you would get a really polite rejection letter - despite the mean things you posted about them.
He's not the sad fuck, you are.
When Dodge came out with it's 'innovative' features that really were just rip offs of what just about everyone else in the industry had been doing you didn't see other car makers responding with briefs.
NO, they respond with product.
Take a good historical look at cars. You will find quite a few bits of 'visual clustering'. This is especially obvious if you have an older car. People often will confuse it with one of the other look-alikes from it's own era.
Apple is just too superficial these days.
Instead of competing in an open market, they would rather sue.
Personally, I would rather not subsidize that. Apple antagonizes those of us sitting on the fence when they pull this crap. I don't want to help replace Bill with an even worse Steve.
So, instead of buying iMacs for the young cousins still the old neighborhood I'll likely opt for Pias or Compaqs or Gateways instead...
cha-ching...
'Ownership of Identity' is the gist of Trademark.
If this is a trademark case, and confusion is not at issue, then Apple should be tossed out on their arse.
Im happy that no one patented the beige computer case -- if each company had to make its own design, we wouldnt even recognize computers anymore:
Oh, you mean that red metalic sphere on your desk is your new Athlon?
There's a whole article on the "cutification" of Japanese culture in Wired. I think the January 2000 issue, but I'm not sure. Its quite good
I'm so tired of hearing this... No, that's not how it went. Xerox allowed Apple to view the Xerox GUI technology in exchange for several hundred thousand shares of Apple stock. They took a lot of concepts from the original GUI, but extended it, such as adding overlapping windows, better set of widgets, etc. When MS copied the Mac GUI (remember Billy G's statement, "I want the Mac on my PC"?), Apple didn't get anything from it, and MS didn't innovate on UI at all. MS was also the dominant player in the OS area at that time and Apple recognised this as a threat to their long term survival, that's when Apple attempted to sue MS and lost. However, MS was very successful in suing Digial Research over the GEM GUI, which was just as much a copy of the Windows UI and the Windows UI was of the Mac UI. Kind of funny how these things work.
If you cared to follow the link before opening your big mouth to spew personal insults, you'd notice that it has a color scheme and translucent properties very similar to those of a "Bondi Blue" or "Blueberry" iMac.
IBM should try to sue Apple on the grounds that while IBM clone manufacturers were able to make beige boxes, the old powermacs were non-ibm beige machines.
=P
Seriously though, if Apple would just put more effort into what's in the box, instead of making retro electro-gumdrop machines, they wouldn't have to worry about companies copying their case design.
Inovate, and build a good product. If you do it well you won't need the lawyers.
Apple did innovate. They were ripped off. That's the point of the lawsuit.
There was a LITTLE PRINCE who lived on an asteroid. One day he went to other asteroids and on one was a businessman who had patented the stars because he was the first person to patent the stars and for the rest of the story youll have to read THE LITTLE PRINCE which was written by a man who could draw elephant after they had been eaten by Boa Constrictor
Repeat after me: Clock rate means nothing!
This knee-jerk opposition to patents is getting slashdot a bad name. Already, the site is blocked by most filtering software because of the bad language, warez trading (checked out some of those rogue sid= links lately), links to goatsex, etc, etc. As far as I am aware, another, more justifiable objection is that the site keeps espousing the hateful liberal agenda on any topic from private property to parent's responsibilities for their children (which, come to think of ti, is another form of private property -- liberal socialists are nothing if not consistent). Slashdot is run by relativists, for relativists, and the sick joke is that the people visiting it have the temerity to use computers, the very expressions of the true objective nature of the universe (which is capitalism). People like Larry Wall who invent relativist languages for computers ("there's more than one way" WELL THERE SHOULDN@T BE!! YOU SICK PEOPLE!!) are destroying the fabric of our society
Have you noticed the recent spate of black on white hate crimes? It's the fault of liberals, inciting good law abiding Negroes to emulate the hate of the liberal socialists. I admit that nobody on slashdot has advocating the public shooting of white people (in the articles, anyway -- ever set your browser to -1?), but the climate of tolerance is part of the same project of making it OK for liberals to destroy this great country with their hate. BOYCOTT SLASHDOT!!!
This is a hoot. You're saying that a market where there is competition leads to socialism? Methinks you have things exactly backwards. And profit isn't possible where there's competition?! Whoa.
That wasn't what I was saying at all. I'd be pretty stupid to believe something that is blatently not true. All I'm saying is that when dealing with foreign competitors our corporations need to be proetcted by laws beneficial to them. Competetion within the US is good, but when it comes to a US company against a foreign one, then we should obviously make sure the US one wins to ensure that the tax revenue they provide remains within the US economy. If you believe otherwise you are ignorant of the economic realities of today's market.
Oh dear ! What short memories we have ! Do you recall the first attempt at the famous GUI from Apple, the Lisa, now to be found in garages all over the world ? I have news for you. The Xerox Star predated it by about a decade - with a not too dissimilar GUI. I am sure I have seen translucent plastic cases before the iMac popularised them as well. Must admit they weren't as nice as the iMac, though. Its nice to see a machine wrapped in a pretty piece of injection moulded plastic, rather than those bland beige boxes, don't you think ?
Is that what your mommy who works at Apple told you?
tee hee hee
Also, while clockrate isn't the killer factor, I'm afraid there's other factors in AMD and Intel's chips that uh, pretty much pound on the gay little fruit.
If I was Bill Gates, I would buy Apple and then shutdown the company.
What would you do?
Sigh. There you go again.
Yes, Apple was "inspired" by the Xerox Star. Apple also paid Xerox for the inspiration. Also, the Macintosh interface is similar to the Xerox star in that they both use icons and buttons. That's it.
The Xerox Star had no menu bar. The Xerox Star did not support overlapping windows. The Xerox Star had icons on the desktop for printers (which the Macintosh did not--at least not until the early '90s).
According to Bruce Tognazzi, Apple spent about $50 million on UI research after seeing the Xerox Star. This was not intended to make it different, but to make it better. If they just wanted to make it different, they could have spent considerably less money.
Apple, by the way, does or did have patents on their interface. The reason that they lost the court case with Microsoft was not that the courts didn't uphold Apple's patents but that Apple had signed away their rights to Microsoft in order to get Microsoft to build Macintosh software. (Aside: The one grumble that I have with Steve Jobs is that he is starstruck with big companies. I'd rather have 50,000 small developers building applications than 20 big developers.)
All of this has been reported over and over. The "Apple Stole The Mac GUI" riff just shows your ignorance.
At least that's what every piece of computer H/W I ever bought new came as...I always just thought they turned brown after years of exposure to light/smoke/what-have-you...anyway they should make some kind of 'nasty yellow' spray coating to make your nice-new dove grey accessories match up with your nasty yellowish case. Offtopic to some degree, but I felt it should be mentioned.
Color scheme look familiar? =)
... and DEC should too - for Apple using blue cases.
Last time I checked, my SGI Indy predates the blue/white Apple Macintoshes by, oh, about six years. And my DEC AlphaStation 255 4/300 by 2-3 years.
Does Apple really need to defend their shoddy (though not as bad as x86 PC-AT) hardware and laughable operating system through design patents?
Sheesh, the consumer computing world is in more serious trouble than I ever imagined!
~ACMessage typed on a _blue_ SGI Indy R4400-150. :-P
The world needs less crappy ripoffs - like Gnome and KDE - of successful products.
therefore, I hope that, like myself, you are using and LCD monitor not to damage your eyes too much; and that, like myself, you avoid MicroSoft software with its pathetic GUI (and its clone themes on Linux/Unix as well): having to look at that all day long, I'd puke...
you left off the and at the beginning and end.
Apple has been light years ahead of x86 technology in terms of hardware and O/S for years now, you dumb shit! The fucking things rarely crash, last forever and a day, and are easy to use to boot!
The only reason they aren't as popular as their intel cousins is because they didn't open up their architecture like IBM did years ago, a move we are all sure they regret, since it was a gamble which paid off.
... but then I thought "who the hell want to look like me".
Audi is a subsidiary of Volkswagen. It'd be pretty amusing to see VW sue itself. [grin]
Didn't the really old arcade game Gorf have a translucent blue/see through joystick?
the way.
Sure, people should be free to make and sell anything they want (that's safe), but I won't miss those transparent PC cases.
That transparent case that apple makes is possibly the most hidious thing that I have ever seen (and I live down the street from a VW dealer with those stupid 'new bugs' all over the lot, so I know what I am talking about).
They actually spent money developing the idea for blue-berry-cool-aid-vomit-color transparent cases!? It's like if I filled the case of my microwave with a 50/50 mix of jello and plaster. Mmmmm, now that's attractive!
I think I'll go out and sick pictures of lung cancer on my toaster and get that trade marked. You never know when it'll be the next big craze.
Don't bother - looking like you is punishement enough.
Have a linux question? Click here
> The Imac design isnt a 'hot' thing anymore
Checked the list of top selling computers before posting? Dumbass
>Like all design fads it gets popular for a day then goes away.
How long has the iMac been around - a day??? Retard.
>As far as Apple goes, they should learn that these cases arent really helping them in the public eye.
You mean the 'Slashdot eye' - like Apple gives a shit about the kooks like you who hang out here.
> they would be far worse than Microsoft if they were a dominant player
You're loosing steam, you were on a roll with stupid comments, but now you've drifted off into the inane...
> they could concentrate on doing creative thinking, which they obviously are capable of, rather than litigation they would fare better
Hmm, let's see, the iMac has won various awards for its -creative- design, it has become an icon of computing just like the original Mac, but you say they need to be more -creative-, so dumb it.s really sad.
> potential allies
Bottom feeder x86 companies like eMachines - ALLIES - with Apple???
Later (D)ork.
Come on people. imac has a lot more going for it than just color. If imac was just crying about color, it would have been thrown out of court. But they put together a totally different combo A small, all-in-one-piece computer, distinct ergonomic design, bold colors that everyone else was afraid to try, even included a carrying handle. Very original! Now, after 20 years of people mindlessly creating the SAME EXACT look and feel of computers, everyone wants to try this new design because it was such a success for Apple. What Apple did is called "Thinking outside of the box." Personally, I don't like using Apple computers, but you have to give them credit for being able to do that.
Computers have happened to be "beige" or grey or whatever for years. But the focus was not on the exterior design. It was focused on what was inside. But Apple had a specific focus on design. So nyah.
I don't apple invented the pizza-box design, or the tower design, but apple uses both. Of course, apple didn't invent the GUI either.
Apple pulled a massive advertising campagne for promoting the iMac. The others wanted to ride on that wave for free... Not Fair... It gives you cheaper PC's tough...
I'm surprised you don't know the answer to this; don't you read what the Apple apologists have to say?
The answer is that only Apple has the right to rip off ideas from someone else. No one then has the subsequent right to create anything even vaguely resembling Apple's lifted design.
Ahh, the Apple visit to Xerox justifies the open source community ripping off the rest of the commercial software world argument.
Yawn.
Oh, Im so impressed by your eloquence and vocabulary. You must be one of those users Apple were afraid couldnt tell the difference between an iMac and a Peecee in a bright case. Well, with a userbase like that, it suddenly makes sense.
I thank my lucky stars that Apple never became a dominant player. While their boxes are definately nice, they want to control far more of the computer industry than Bill Gates ever dreamt of. Not only do they want to control the hardware, they want to control the OS, all software and just about everything regarding the computer up to and including its case color! Because, like, you know, Steve Jobs is better than us mere mortals.
nope,,, The Australian yellow pages attempted to copyright the contents of the phone book. In an attempt to block a company which was selling Cdrom version of the book in newsagents etc. They only started this when they created a online phone book. I dont know how the case turned out. Good example of electronic copyright in respect to real life stuff.
Sing it out brother........this is a capitalist world.
In no way was the iMac a 'risk.' The iMac for the most part is a very straightforward design. It was envisioned as a simple(all in one) and stylish(awesome industrial design) computer.
In no way was Steve Jobs 'lucky.' Ignoring the Steve Jobs is worse than Bill Gates juvinial crap that gets posted here, Jobs has a fanatical drive for excellence, and quality. The iMac is no accident or fluke.
>I'm more concerned with what's inside a computer than how it looks. I stare at a monitor all day, not a case.
I see this assertion quite a bit from pc users. It is exactly the same attitude expressed by dos users when confronted with a Macintosh. I don't need pretty icons, I'm a real computer user! Give me a dos prompt! All those dos geeks are now running an os with (not as)pretty icons!
Do you let your mom dress you? Why care about something so superfical as personal appearance.
Do you drive a car painted with primer? Why care about what your car looks like, if it runs well.
(BTW this was not spell checked, you should'nt care about something as superficial as 'spelling')
My god, why is slashdot a magnet for morons. Is this why most open source software is such crap? The open source community is simply full of dumbshits.
What the FUCK does an iron have to do with a court case between computer makers?
Answer, NOTHING retard.
>Inovate, and build a good product. If you do it well you won't need the lawyers.
So you're saying - laughing at your stupidity as I type - that if one makes a crappy product you will need lawyers to protect your product from being ripped off!!! But if you make an innovative, good product other companies will not try to steal your design.
HAAHAHAHAHAAH Are you fucking stooopid!!!
Ahem. Which nation would that be? Did you know that WWW in fact stands for World Wide Web? So, incredibly enough, there are lots of people reading Slashdot who aren't Americans!!!
The US of course. What other nation counts here on /.? This is an American site run by American people and aimed at the open-source community here in America. If anyone from the rest of the world uses /. then great, I'm all for that, but it's not the intended purpose of the site.
Petal, did you know that in the USA, a significant part of the population has a life expectancy at birth as low as in the poorest countries in the world? Or that those great corporations that you are so proud of are in fact almost always multi-national entities and have no qualms about exporting Great American Jobs to other parts of the world--India, f'rinstance.
So which significant part of the population is this that has a 25-30 year life expectancy? Not any important or productive part I'm guessing. And let's face it, would you rather live 25 years in the US or 25 years in some third world hellhole?
And as for corporations being multi-national entities that is because US companies are so successful that they are able to buy these foreign companies outright thanks to our economic freedoms. I mean can you imagine a company like Microsoft, one of the greatest contributors to American wealth, coming from the UK or even God forbid, France? I think not.
Companies have every right to employ people wherever they want to in order to ensure maximum profitability. If that happens to be in some country like India where people will work for an extremely small wage then so be it. The success of that company still helps you as an American citizen by providing hard-earned tax dollars that support the services that liberals like you think are essential to America's society.
No, but frankly, we should be able to sue the producers of both films for wasting our time.
Look around!
All the computers look the same, all the cars look
the same, everything which should be exciting is
just plain and BORING.
Fight for design patents, and we'll make the world
an enjoyable place!
Scary isnt' it? They both even have the same Ad Agency - Chiat/Day!!!! Maybe they are in cahoots!
> blacklisted by the FSF
Oh my! Apple missed out on all that great FSF software!
Apple Emp #1: "Hey, we've been blacklisted by the FSF"
Apple Emp #2: "FSF???, who the fuck are they?"
Well, I guess you're right. The FSF software at that time would only have been useful if you did software development, and since we all know nobody develops applications for the Mac, who would care?
ugh, they both have those annoying hippie-crappie commercials with the damn things gliding around in circles and crap. maybe they are really the same company!
No. Cars would begin to look like Yugos.
Just look at the computer world where you can rip off anyone - you end up with Gnome and KDE - the Yugos of the computer world.
I am really pleased that no-one took out a copyright on beige boxes.
Technology patents keep the world honest, and stop The Man from selling good American jobs down the river to Mexican and Indian monkeys (this is not a racist term) who will work for peanuts. Putting us right back where we were before we even formed the union.
Geeks and programmers get the bad end of the stick because they have no union. Sure we all know some story about a guy with a hundred million of stock options in his back pocket, but for every one of him there's a hundred poor slumps of sysadmins, bleary eyed from lack of sleep, forgotten what a weekend used to be, making barely enough to keep him in rent. And praying to hell that APple don't export his job to the freakin' Chinese.
I've got my card for the Computer Engineers Unions (Local 3-10, not affiliated with the CIO or AFL). HOw about you? Gonna join now, or after your job goes to India?
--AC because, officially, this is a non-union shop.
Overhyped nationalism died a long time ago, just some apparently won't let it RIP.
Yes that's true, we are now in a corporate age where corporations hold power, and my support of the US comes from the unbridled freedoms we allow for our primary tax-earners. The socialist nations of Europe hold back their economies through outdated ideas like "trade unions" and the Social Charter which basically prevents companies from making money. Why do you think unemployment is so high in Europe and so low here in the US?
My point is that without allowing our corporations the freedom to protect their interests and grow exponentially then we, as a country, will fall behind the rest of the world. Let's face it the US is the only world superpower and other countries are just jealous of our financial, moral and military strengh. We must make sure that this situation remains throughout the next millenium. Only if we fail to do so will the US "burn out" as you seem to suggest is likely.
But you can't redefine style
That should have read
But you can't copyright style.
Guess I should preview a bit more.
I was in a local computer store to buy a cable. A customer walked in and asked, "Do you have the eOne?" Salesman: No, we don't. Customer: But isn't that the new Apple? I saw the ads for it, isn't it replacing the iMac? Salesman: No, it's a ripoff. Customer: Oh. Well it looks cool.
Enough. There have been enough versions of this same lame argument posted already.
The iMac mouse and keyboard were (allegedly) created with the small hands of a child in mind (schools being huge Apple customers). Not being a child myself, I can't say how ergonomically efficient they are for their target audience. The crime, though, is that Apple ships the same mouse and keyboard with the G4. I mean, I know that power users are getting younger all the time, but...sheesh.
>Films often come in batches of similar themes. Should the producers of
>Armageddon be able to sue the producers of Deep impact because they're
>both about asteroids hitting the earth?
If you've seen Deep Impact, the answer of course would be *YES* God, that was a movie that didn't live up to the hype.
>In the 80's Yamaha sold their receivers in both silver and black for
>the same price, you could take your pic. But everyone bought black and
>noone wanted silver. After that they only sell black now.
I think that was because the silver model was basically the black model with silver paint sprayed on. Looked pretty nasty once the silver layer got scratched or worn away from use.
Well, for Emachines and Daewoo settling was probably a wise move. The Imac design isnt a 'hot' thing anymore and bothering to pursue it in court wether or not the case has any merit would be a waste of money. Like all design fads it gets popular for a day then goes away.
As far as Apple goes, they should learn that these cases arent really helping them in the public eye. They have time after time proven that they would be far worse than Microsoft if they were a dominant player. If they could concentrate on doing creative thinking, which they obviously are capable of, rather than litigation they would fare better. Wasting resources and goodwill from potential allies on useless bickering in court isnt a good idea.
What you say is true of trademarks -- which is why 3M prefers you to say "Scotch-brand tape" and not "scotch tape".
However, copyright can only expire or be given up. From 10 Big Myths about copyright:
Just FYI.
James
Oh bloody hell, do I really have to be this obvious? Anyway:
... posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist"
...Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO?"
... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'."
1) The bit where I attacked your views came before the sarcasm and the spelling comments.
2) Those were thrown in for fun.
Right, then, let's do this carefully...
I said: "I object to
You replied: "of course the rest of the world exists".
I now say: "I complained about those WHO ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't exist. If I wanted to get pernickety, I'd rephrase and say I object to those who ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't read or post to Slashdot. That would be you, as evinced by comments like 'It is only by doing this that we can make sure our children grow up in the greatest nation on Earth'.
I said: "Moral guidance from the US?
You replied: "The rest of the world provides a vast market for American corporations to dominate and what I am saying is that we must ensure that this happens through legislation beneficial to US corporations. What else do you think the WTO is for? "
To which I say: "Are you claiming that this is an example of moral guidance? Are you claiming that the WTO is a domestic US piece of legislation? Are you claiming that being nice to China is a morally upright thing to do?"
Here are some of the questions that you haven't yet answered that I've already posted:
1 Where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh?
2 Have you ever been to Europe?
3 If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works?
4 Why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said?
5 Can you even find an article by an English person doing this?
Additionally, I defied you to "adduce a single example of 'England
Ready and waiting for your answers to numbers 1 to 5, plus tons of evidence about how the English bang on about the Empire and how it was better in those days...
Not quite. The purpose is to protect the intellectual property of those who originated the design. The right being protected here is a property right, not the right to "protection" against being tricked (since there is no such right).
It's interesting how a look or just a concept can bar people from creating similiar designs, usually if a design is slightly different from the original it can be produced. Would like you like Ford to copyright the concept of wheels on a car ?
I do think this is an obvious sign that Apple is selling computers purely on their looks rather than dealing with the age old issue of proprietary hardware with proprietary operating system with lack of mainstream support.
Apple would be dead a load time ago if it wasn't for it's performance above x86 chips. However every since the G3's Apple's are started to basically base their architecture round the PC, i.e. PCI bus, SDRAM memory, ATA hard drives.
However, on the downside, Jobs' decision to sell downgraded G3's at the same price as the previously announced higher-spec machines smacked of the worst case of arrogance I have seen in the industry in a long time. They also have a firm grip on the supply of the machines, and as a result, can dictate prices at a whim, and frequently do.
It seems to me that Jobs learned a few tricks during his tenure at Redmond, and it scares me to think that a company set up to redress the balance of technology in favbour of the user has developed practices that would not look out of place in the companies they used to vilify.
They deserve it. The spent thier time and money on an origional design (the difference between Amazon and Apple) only to have it ripped off. Besides, the PC cases are horrible. All you iMac haters: A tablet is great for photoshop/gimp, but the iMacs mouse works pretty well too. And the iMac holds to it's roots of being an all-in-one portable!
Uh no...the FSF would only have been useful if Apple wanted the crud that is listed on the FSF page.
Oh dear, no emacs for Mac users. We have to 'suffer' with CodeWarrior.
Go show a Mac user who has thousands of quality commercial software packages available a list of the FSF crap - watch them laugh in your face.
No one gives a shit about the FSF.
Fashions are usually based on standard looks. The iMac was an attempt to totally redefine the look. The bell bottom is a standard design thats been around for years.
Don't be ridiculous. The bell bottom was new at some point in the past and had indeed redefined style. But you can't redefine style. To prove this, just answer these questions:
Could Picasso and his cohorts legitimately been able to copyright the "look and feel" of cubism? Or should Isaac Asimov have been able to copyright the "feel" of sci-fi android novels? Maybe Chuck Berry should have nabbed Rock and Roll? Perhaps Disney ought to have copyrighted the look and feel of animated cartoons?
The answer (you already know it) is NO. Every one of these ideas is preposterous, and iMac is no different. I don't condone ripping people off, but it is by no means enforceable. I am all for copyright with works of art, but copyrighting style is ridiculous. I am positive that if this was taken to court, Apple would have lost.
The only reason why those two companies could be in the wrong here is deception - if they want people to believe they're buying an iMac. But that would be fraud and I don't think they'd be that stupid.
Look-alikes and clones are a way of life, and a glorious symbol of The Free Market. Style cannot and should not be copyrightable. No way. I almost wish eMachines had enough money to challenge Apple.
ööööö.... Shouldn't Rowenta then sue/settle/whatever Apple over this? I'm giving up on trying to understand corporate "thinking"...
J.
The pinto had an auxilary heating system to keep you warm after a crash; the pinto didnt'
:)
And there was a huge difference under the hood: the pinto couldn't leave a nice oil spot in your driveway the day you brought it home
I disagree entirely. Patents, Trade Secrets,
Copyright, they all need to go. Trademark should
be weakened to just the product name. The idea
of owning ideas is just stupid.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Comparing a beige Mac and an iMac is like comparing a Pinto to a Jaguar
Well, the Pinto is (basically) American, and therefore common as muck, whereas the Jaguar is (basically) British, therefore classy as you like!
Yep, you're right, there's definitely a parallel there :)
Regards,
Denny
# Using Linux in the UK? Check out Linux UK
Police State UK - news and
Ah yes..it's a REAL computer cuz it runs WINDOWS® and has one of them new fangled floppy drive thingies in it...
Haw haw!!
Trolls are just so much fun!
I'm sorry - does lawsuit related to trademarked "trade dress" have anything to do with the DVD CSS?
I didn't think so.
Confusing a complicated case like DeCSS with one of simple trade dress is a travesty. It belittles the nature of the DeCSS, as trade dress is a very simple issue, and DeCSS is a very complicated one - rife with trade secrets, damages, and, of course, all the legal technicalities of the DMCA.
Moof!
My comment to which this is attached has a rather out of context subject line. In fact it has the subject line from my previous Slashdot post ... all thanks to Mozilla on Linux mimicking that bullshit on Windwows where browsers prefill forms based on previous entries.
Well, I'm going back to Navigator 3.04.
Chris Wareham
Trademark law is designed to allow brands to have something distinct so that clones can't fool a consumer into thinking he/she is getting the real product. This is similar to the idea behind not allowing people to wear police uniforms; technically I can wear whatever I want, but wearing a police uniform would make people think I have certain powers/rights that I don't.
So the question is, not "did eMachines steal the look and feel of the iMac", but "do the eMachines look enough like the iMac to confuse consumers into thinking that they are purchasing an iMac, or looking at an iMac when they really are looking at an eOne.". I think that the eOne is distinct enough to not fool consumers (although clearly the iMac looks better). It does take advantage of the consumer desire for an all-in-one, stylized computer. Nothing wrong with that.
Here's some pictures of the eOne, compared with this picture of an iMac. Again, I think they're different enough that the average consumer won't think it's an iMac. Which would make this not a trademark violation.
Now, to address some other issues: people seem to think this is equivalent to trying to protect the "beige case" design. It is not. That is so generic that no one associates it with any specific company. However, if someone came out with a translucent cobalt-blue cube computer, they should get smacked down because people will confuse it with the Cobalt Cube.
For something that I think is trademark violation, check this pilot look-a-like out...
For those of us who only have time to scan through the headlines, please put the 1 liner answer to the story in the headline.
Let's please not let slashdot turn into one of the regular mass media news stations that spend most of their time announcing teasers to keep people tuned in thus brining in more advertising revenue.
sincerely,
donfede
It's of course the old style eOne that Apple has a case against.. and that's exactly why you can't find any pics of it.. why? It's illegal.
- Henrik
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
I agree, Apple is worse than MS. Bad though MS is, if Apple were in Microsoft's monopoly position instead of MS I would expect the industry to be in far worse shape.
it scares me to think that a company set up to redress the balance of technology in favbour of the user has developed practices that would not look out of place in the companies they used to vilify
It's not just their pricing. Don't forget the "upgrade" patch for G3 machines that Apple urged all the G3 owners to install. The one that then secretly rendered the "upgraded" machines unable to use the then-upcoming G4 chips. And of course their blatantly misleading advertising. Integrity seems to be a unknown concept at Apple these days.
I don't know about everyone else, but I think any noble spirit that may once have been at Apple left long ago. So I'm not terribly surprised that Apple pulls some of the crap it does. Apple's arrogance and generally shady practices are a couple of big reasons why I would never work for Apple.
Think this was posted awhile back, but this iron - Rowenta Sufline - was around before the iMac. I'm sure there are other similar looks. What's next? Rectangular computer copyrights? Inovate, and build a good product. If you do it well you won't need the lawyers.
It was the winner of design of the year awards. I think it was unique enough to justify the patent. Anyone else could have taken the marketing risk and done it first. Why do you think Jobs announced it as "Insanely Great!"?
Once again, you guys get it wrong.
The suit was not about copyright or patents. It was about "trade dress" which more akin to trademark. It's a fuzzy bit of law, but then again it's a fuzzy world.
Jeez, I wish you weenies would read the damn articles and look up the big words that you don't understand in a dictionary before you post these things.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I think you're trolling, but just in case you're not (some people really believe what you just said), it deserves an answer.
Nobody (well, nobody who matters ;-) is against companies protecting their work. The catch is that many of us consider their "work" to be the end product itself -- the instantiation, the expression, the implementation. But not the ideas behind that product. You can own the design of specific product, whether that's a Mac or a DVD player or whatever. It's the alleged ownership of the concepts that we don't acknowledge.
This is a hoot. You're saying that a market where there is competition leads to socialism? Methinks you have things exactly backwards. And profit isn't possible where there's competition?! Whoa.
I haven't used an iMac, but I've use one of the blue'n'white minitowers. I can assure you that these products can stand on their own merits, and that consumers do have a reason to buy them. Apple does not need their look and feel protected.
Some people actually believe this. The funny thing is, that's a very un-American attitude. USA isn't the greatest nation on earth because it cowers in fear of foreign competition; it's the greatest because it has the right attitude, and dares others to try to compete. Or at least, that's what I thought...
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Quick note...
I believe Apples famous look and feel os lawsute predates the Lotus 123 lawsute.
Apple spent a lot of time designning the MacOs look and feel and clones are basicly theft of this hard work.
123s look and feel fell together and was never part of some grand design. Cloning is the greater effort.
Apples computers do not (to me) seem remarkably diffrent from other hardware. Could Apple sue Digital? Becouse the iMac looks a lot like the Vt100 we have in storage.
Put a clear case on a Vt100 and it would look identical to an iMac.
This seems like looking far enough back and copying something someone did before and expecting everyone to forget who did it first...
I don't actually exist.
Didn't Apple do this in 1984 with the original Macintosh? You know... that box I made a fishtank out of. :)
Ohh yeah, and that one had a floppy drive too.
Why is it that people have such a hard time giving Apple credit where credit is due? I'm no Apple zelot but you really have to hand it to them, like them or not - Apple had lots of 'firsts'.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
The only origional design to the iMac is the rounded translucent design. All-in-the-screen designs have existed for a long time (The origional Macs, Compaq made some PCs, etc)
Maybe they should sue HP and TI. The HP49 is rounded and has a translucent cover. And look the these covers that TI sells for some of their calculators.
That vacuum cleaner that looks like an iMac definitely came out before the iMac. I distinctly remember the week Apple unveiled the iMac, I saw a comment on some forum pointing out the similarity between the iMac and the already existant iSuck.
Well, I could go down into the computer hall, but its a bit of a bother, so I may not remember exactly. Wyse made several models that were pretty close to the same shape as the iMac, I know we have one terminal, maybe Digital, that is almost exactly iMac shaped. Some of the older Sun machines were pretty close, but a lot bigger.
Transparent cases, first one I saw must have been at CeBit in 90 or 91. Not many of the big vendors have sold them, but they've been common as 'designer cases' for roll-your-own peecees.
Actually, this case had nothing whatsoever to do with patentable designs. It is a (sortof extended) trademark issue.
Apples design may in some way be new. Then again, packaging electronics in shiny curved transparent cases isnt exactly a new thing, so who knows. What we do know is that Emachines and Daewoo didnt consider it worth the trouble to find out.
Apple has always been worse than Microsoft in that specific aspect of behaviour, at least dating back to their famous look and feel lawsuit. They were during that time blacklisted by the FSF who asked people not to port GNU applications to the Macintosh platform. Microsoft is bad, mostly because they fight dirty, but Apple would be far worse because they love suing to the right and left. Of course, Sun would probably be on par with Apple, altho Sun is suffering from a bit of a split personality when it comes to litigation.
Tenure in Redmond? Huh?
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
vor wrote: "Ha! Obiviously the author never used an iMac Mouse."
(The author humbly admits that the iMac mouse and keyboard have rolled back Apple's purported ergonomic access by several years.)
The first rounded Apple mice (the adb ones) were smooth and sweet, but the current iMac accessories are pretty atrocious.
In my previous job, I used an iMate adaptor to use a real keyboard on my iMac -- a Northgate, same key action as an IBM. If it was only less wide it would be perfect.
I also used a real mouse, at least as real as one-button mice get, through the ADB port on the Northgate.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Oooh yeah, the PET. I always loved that vaguely "egyptian sphinx" look that machine had.
--
Greetings New User! Be sure to replace this text with a
Clear, Dark Skies
If, by looking at a design, a layperson could be forgiven for confusing it with an original design done by someone else, that has as much danger of defrauding the consumer into buying the "wrong" thing as it does of doing economic harm to the creator of the original design. Anyone who's been to a NYC electronics store and seen boxes of televisions labelled "Panarsonic" knows exactly what I'm talking about. But the infringing companies don't have to intend consumer confusion for it to happen, and consumers want to be protected from it, no matter what the intentions of the makers.
While this particular case may raise hackles with the ./ crowd, for reasons peculiar to the ./ ethos, no one marginally familiar with industrial design can be surprised or upset about this.
This suit won't prevent anyone from making computers, or even from making rounded, one piece computers, or from making computers with translucent stuff, or from making computers in slurpee blue, or from making one that's the trendiest industrial design since the VW beetle in the 60's, or from making them so gosh darn cute you want to lick them, but it might make it difficult to do all these things at once. I don't think anyone is suffering for it.
Personally, I'd like to see more butch, metallic, boldfaced, but elegantly designed industrial-looking computers, and fewer attempts to make them so cute 'n cuddly.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
If you ask me, anybody who wants to make it look like they manufacture iFruits needs to take a good long look at their goals.
Personally I dont really like the Macintosh computers or their OS, and I especially think they are evil when they put them in that disgusting shell. I dunno, maybe it's just that I once read in the bible that satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
> Oh, you mean that red metalic sphere on your desk is your new Athlon?
:), but I WOULD like to see much more interesting case designs! Why does the darn thing have to be a box? Someone above mentioned a silvery pyramid case style, that would be cool too (though I think a metallic red sphere is cooler :)
If I could get a case like that that was also easy to work inside of, I'd love it. I personally don't really go for the comic-strip style of the iMac (though I like the BeOS interface, go figure
Sponge
Whereas "classic" FUD tries to sneak a few lies in among a bunch of truths or mostly-truths, this guy is associating his first point (a valid one) with several ridiculous statements in order to discredit the valid point.
:P
Bravo!
Sponge
Oakley also has 441 patents on its various sunglasses. And with every rip-off out there they are bringing their asses to court and have won hundreds of such lawsuits.
Although this is the company who's ex director recovered from parkinsons after being let out of gaol early on grounds of ill health...
I think it was Alzheimers, wasn't it? Anyway, not that important.
Personally I think the artist should have won.
- Oliver. "exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
No, no monitor and system combos. Before apple, the most popular combo was made by compaq - in fact, two of them. One was designed before the MPC2 craze and didn't have a sound card or cd-rom, and the second one integrated speakers, sound card, cd-rom, voice modem... etc. Unisys did it before them with the ICON 2 and ICON 3.
Maybe Jack Trammel should sue them all for copying the Commodore Pet. He could sue IBM, too... I just looked over at my PS/2 model 25. (Hey, this is fun... let everybody sue everybody else... who was the first to put a computer on the desktop?)
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
who was the first to put a computer on the desktop?)
Apple...
"Basic shape; yep, been done. Its an almost exact clone of several terminal types, and pretty close to a shrunken version of several computer types that have been around since late 80's early 90's."
Care to give a few examples?
"Transparent cases (in colors); yep, been done. Been around since a loooong time."
What's a loooong time to you? A year?
Mike van Lammeren
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Didn't they copyright it? I don't see how you could patent a bottle, after all, the method of making glass bottles is pretty much in the public domain by now. ;)
Wah!
The Apple spokesman said all that needs saying: "One's a computer, one's an iron. What's your point?"
That's the way the law sees it too. IANAL, but AFAIK if you take a design idea from a product that has nothing in common with your own (irons vs. computers) then any suit for design infringement is likely to be lost. As long as you don't incorporate any trademarked logos and such...
Probably because the Astro is boxy, beige and has a distinctive curve that isn't reminiscent of the iMac. If anything, it looks more like the old G3 All-In-One that Apple shipped a while back, though I'll admit the Gateway offering is classier in that respect.
Apple isn't after people manufacturing 'all in one box' enclosures', just PCs that are mimicing the iMac's style and color scheme. The all-in-one idea is fairly old (TRS-80, anyone?), it's the unique blend of transparent and colored plastics, combined with the unique shape, that Apple is being protective of.
______________________
> No machine before the iMac had any design similar to it
That's not true. If you take appart the color and the shape, the original Mac has all the elements an iMac have.
They offer the same kind of functionnality (if you look at the technology availlable when the first Mac came to the market), the same easy of use (plug it an turn it on and it work).
The iMac is just an update of the original Mac concept. There is nothing new in that design.
They just added nice colors. Even the shape of the box is not new, we've seen similar shape in computer case for long (they just has no monitor embeded).
Ok now put down the flag for a second and join the rest of us in the modern era. Overhyped nationalism died a long time ago, just some apparently won't let it RIP.
Patents weren't meant to be a tool of world domination. They were meant to give a way to share ideas and concepts while not giving up all claim to something thus being able to sell and market that idea for a set period of time. What they have is a hold on the exact design. I can still make a transparent system w/o them being able to do anything. I can't make one that looks like their computers though and sell it without a license. Would be a derivitive work then.
Many patents are rather silly these days and have no bearing on reality other than someone trying to get rich quick off of pulling a fast one. That is why they get viewed a tad skeptically.
Also as a totally OT aside, don't knock the European nations all that much. They were here before us, they'll probably be around after us. Brightest flames burn out the quickest and the USA has definitely been a bonfire.
Now, 99% of the time I'm with you on this whole confusion of Patentss/Trademarks/Copyrights, but this time it's a patent, not a trademark. Apple lost the "look-and-feel" trademark case when they settled with MS years ago.
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
> Also, did you know that UPS has a patent (or
> trademark, I forget which) on that brown color
> they use for everything from their trucks to
> their uniforms? Yup. No one else can legally
> use "UPS Puke Brown", without UPS's permission.
Trademarks are granted in a context (remember Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" ?) -- in the UPS case you mention the context is package courier companies. In other words, you can't start a courier company and paint your trucks (and dress your employees) in "UPS brown". You could start an ice cream store and paint the building "UPS brown", however.
I think it's all based on allowing companies to build a recognizable look, and to prevent the general public from being misled by "look-alike" products from rival companies.
I remember reading that it was the most neutral of all colors.
Everybody hates it the same.
- "Yeah man, I tell ya what, man...That dang ol' Internet, man...You just go one there and point and click...Talk about
> Sometime in the middle part of this century
What century are you living in?
You can now trademark smells, colours, sounds, shapes, and "aspects of packaging" in Australia: See here
The siren used to signal the end of an Australian Rules football game is now a trademarked sound for example. So is the specific shade of blue used by Ansett Airlines on all their planes.
But (just to get back on topic) my understanding is that in order to trademark such things, you either need to demonstrate that the thing you're trademarking is clearly associated by the general public with your 'product' - eg the football siren is instantly recognizable to most Australians or that you've spent a lot of time and effort selecting or otherwise achieving your 'look' - Apple's extensive market research (or coca-cola's design brief for the bottle competition) would pretty clearly make it over the bar.
It'll be inetresting over the next couple of years to see what sort of cases just scrape through & what sort get dismissed as frivilous though.. : )
I think it is great to see this kind of restriction being put on copying. Emachines blatantly copied the iMac look after seeing that it was a hit with consumers. Macintosh put forth the iMac as a risk and they should be able to reap the benefit of their consumer-friendly design.
It's always nice to see lower priced alternatives, which often makes the consumer's life easier, but there is a fine line which was torn to pieces by Emachines. They didn't even make a minor attempt to produce their own look and feel! I think it's pretty sad that they couldn't even do a bit of their own designing!
The thing about Wal*Mart and other such stores is that they may sell copies, but they aren't selling to the same class of people. The copies are also usually different in some way: cheaper material, different brand name, minor style variations. As a result, I think the big-name designers don't have too much to worry about. Even so, "look and feel" is an important company value these days. If we didn't have any copyright/trademark laws, I think we would be a lot worse off.
Jason
And damn right too. Companies like Apple which put their valuable time and effort into producing a product as innovative as
the iMac then they should be allowed to protect their product from others who seek to cash in on it.
The whole issue of design patents is likely to raise strong feelings here on
patents and the rights of a company to protect its work. Patents are there to ensure that corporations, the lifeblood of our
nation, can protect themselves from their competitors. Anything which allows them to do so is a good thing and should be
encouraged by anyone who cares about the future of our great nation. Without these and other measures allowing
corporations the freedom to make
</quote>
So far I agree, at least about your sayings regarding patents as tehm selfs. Please alow me to ignore that "grat nation gliberitsh"
<qote>
profit we will end up like the countries of Europe where socialist policies have left children
to starve on the streets as their parents aren't allowed to work, all for the sake of the "greater good".
</quote>
Question: do you realy know where europe is?
When did you visit it?
Where did you see a child starving?
What do you know about socialism?
<quote>
If anything, the US needs more protection for its corporations rather than less. Now we are at the beginnings of a truly global
market we must ensure that our champions come out on top with their dealings with foreigners. It is only by doing this that we
can make sure our children grow up in the greatest nation on Earth.
</quote>
So, everybody may have its freedom as long as it is the freedom the "great nation" has certified?
Yes you need your silly patents, as long you can steal the european inventions with echelon and file them as patent in the US.
Your great nation would very soon vanish in the world economy if europe would not place so much political efforts in the defence alliance with the US. US ecomomy is only faster but less solid than the european
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Check out: Three Common Fallacies In the User Interface Copyright Debate (yes, this is about Copyrights and not Trademarks)
One of the most forceful statements of the right to copy appears in the very recent Supreme Court decision in Bonito Boats. Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.: "imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy."[9]
At issue in Bonito Boats was a Florida statute that made it unlawful to duplicate products using the "plug-molding" process. That process represents the most "slavish" copying imaginable. The competitor uses the originator's product to make a mold. and then uses the mold to make duplicates of the originator s product. In the Hand/Holmes tradition, the Court found that the Florida attempt to outlaw plug-molding "[erodes] the general rule of free competition."[10] The Court based its decision in part on the fact that (at least as to patentable subject matter) there is "a federal right to `copy and to use.'"[11] and that "`[t]hat which is published may be freely copied as a matter of federal right.'"[12]
As an aside, does anyone think that consumers were honestly confused by the copies? Do you think Apple was harmed by the loss of even one computer sale? Just because consumers aren't particularly computer-literate dosen't meant they're dumb.
I really don't care what the iMac looks like, computers should be neatly tucked under the desk out of the way!
-- You ain't seen me, right?
The Astro is not an iMac look-alike, well at least not in the same way as the eOne. The eOne could easily be mistaken for an iMac, the Astro may have a similar shape but its color is completely different. It does not copy the "trade dress" (or whatever the legalese term is) of the iMac.
I've got no idea what they were thinking with regard to the keyboard and mouse either.
I've got a Power Mac G4, and the first changes I made to the system came from MacAlly. I bought their iKey USB extended keyboard and their iSweetNet 2-button USB scroll mouse.
Now I can interact with my G4 like an adult, at least. And no, I don't work for MacAlly, I just really like their products.
When the Newton was cancelled 2 years ago, Apple said they were going to keep key newton technologies.
Who would have thought that technology was translucent plastic!
(The E-Mate was translucent green)
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
maybe i'm missing something, but wouldn't the original 'macintosh' (read as the predecessor to the classic and the SE) be the first example of an integrated monitor and cpu case? 'quin
http://www.bolo.ch/bigimgs/lsadm3a.jpg
I was a little interested and after exhaustive searching came up with this (hotbot using 'lear-siegler ADM').
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
...because I have never seen so many nasty-looking iMac knock-off computer cases, printers, mice and keyboards as there are right now. Damn. Seriously, it makes the "boring beige case" look good all over again.
Multiplayer Strategy
While this might be relatively new to computer companies, designers have been seeking protection for their work since long before computers even existed. The news here is not protection of design but the fact that computer manufacturers have started to care about the appearance of their products in the first place.
The Lear-Siegler ADM3 and ADM5 terminals are the same shape as the iMac, and predate them by about 20 years.
-- veni vidi nuclei deceri --- I came, I saw, I dumped core.
There il a little problem, IMHO. Rowenta made a steam iron with plastic parts in various transparent color, and one was transparent and aqua. I own the gray/transparent model.
The problem is that if you don't use the same
exact design you could almost copy the designo of
a thing, if there is no patent on it.
This is because the rear lights of Mercedes' cars
have the unique squared pattern and Opel and Ford have very similar rear lights.
Mike
What century are you living in?
I'm living in the 20th century, and really looking forward to the turn of the millenium on 31 December 2000!
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Under copyright/trademark law, if you do not aggressively defend your intellectual property, you LOSE the rights to that same property! Could this explain the DeCSS fiasco?
no
Many models, of different manifacturers, have a very similar design. Yet, no firm (as far as I know) tried to enforce an 'aesthetical copyright' on a car model. Or did it happen?
Ciao
----
FB
I'd waste a moderation point on you???? ;)
Why is it that if someone copies a physical product's design that it is patent infringement, yet copying user interface isn't? (MacOS and Win95/98, anyone?). This sets up a scary precedent should the courts start viewing software this way. Should this happen, the freedom of free software could very easily be threatened, because the bulk of free software was copied from existing programs...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If the nice ppl at Mac would spend more time making a quality product instead of making up some stupid law suit ever month ...then the world would be a better place .. i mean first the threat made on the theme that had the apple icon in it now the box! i wonder if dairy farmers are going to sue because somone made that cow cover case for there pc ? oooh well just reason 9996 why never to buy a mac "work hard, rock hard, sleep hard, eat hard, grow big and wear glesses if you need them" -Web Wilder
, it has nothing at all to do with copyright or patent law,
The link to IBM's patent search site has already been posted a few times. I'll repost it here so it threads with the above comment. I don't know how to read patents, so I can't tell what the claims are on it. I would appreciate someone explaining how to read the document. So far as I can tell, the patent is for a "decorative enclosure" that looks like the enclosed drawings. In other words, it does sound like a trademark issue. But the documents are labelled patent.
I have a nice, clicky IBM Model M keyboard and a luxurious Logitech scroll mouse on my K6/2-400 Linux box, which I'm utilizing right now. Beside me is a blueberry iMac DV, 400mHz, a gift from a kind aunt.
Yes, the Linux box is far more pleasurable, but the iMac's mouse is not really that bad, in some aspects. True, it's sometimes hard to tell if you have the stupid thing set right, but it keeps the wrist up and fingers slightly curved--a far better position for staving carpal tunnel syndrome than leaning it on the desk or draping the entire hand and wrist over the mouse.
The keyboard is laughable; I'll admit. I hate it. And MacOS9 is just not very stable or supported just yet. At least for me. I might be hallucinating. I see tangerine boxen and flying lime keyboards. Must be.
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
How does this affect the makers of my translucent-blue-and-frosted-white, round-edged steam iron?
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I for one would love to see companies patent that cool camo look that Dade Murphy went for in the movie Hackers. Man, that guy was l33t :-)
Absolutely but the point is the new eONE is also illegal (because of the case against the original)
:)
Go figure
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
"Given Apple's emphasis on ergonomics, color and ease of use, which concretize the abstract results of years of experimentation and testing, it seems likely that design patents will play an expanding role in the protection of their designs."
Have you seen those iMac mice? Apple seems to think that innovation means forgoing that fan-dangled second button and ergonomics for an unusable mouse. Apple wrote the book on ergonomics and software design, and now they seem to be ignoring their own advice (see: Aqua). Yeah. My computer really DOES need a handle!
Why? It's just a fashion. It's no different to big fashion designers deciding that bell bottoms are in, and other fashion designers designing bell bottoms. Not that you would care or know but fashion designers sue each other all the time when an item in their collection looks too much like the item in someone elses collection. In fact Ralph Lauren was sued by a much smaller company (name of which i can't remember now) and lost. Ralph Lauren had to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to the other company and stop producing the item. One big diference in this suit was that Ralph Lauren did not release their product knowing that the other company had something pretty much exactly like theirs. So just think How much more liable they would have been if they had outright copied the other company.
The physical shape of the green Coca Cola bottle is also protected by trademark status.
According to their corporate website, the bottle shape was trademarked in 1977.
LaoK
You can quote them, review them or buy their machines.
About the only thing you can't do, is use their colors;
because then they sue you. They drag the human race downward.
Think different, the judge did.
I think apple would have won due to expressed desires by the companies to copy the apple design rather than on purely design grounds.
Although I'd be dubious about the judge in this case...
Working for the (other) man
>> And if the strategy of simply selling technically superior equipment worked, the Amiga would have killed off x86 in the 80's. Based on the sales of the iMac, lots of people just don't care, as long as the computer is adequate and 'neat'. Apple put a lot of money into making the iMac 'neat'. They have a right to protect their investment.
;) DOH! I mean by GOING color (little Amiga-Freudian slip) My only regret is I went PC when I was 19 and gave the Amiga away, who would've known I'd miss it that much?
HELL yea! And the Amiga was probably one of the most copied platforms of all time. Havent to date seen anything as elegant as the Amiga2000HD I had when I was 16 years old paying off the $2000 I spent on it by mowing lawns.
Aw hell, the Mac friggin copied the Amiga by boing color
Can you imagine what the world would be like if the Amiga reigned and Microsoft was only known as "the people who wrote AmigaBasic", IBM as the "people who developed REXX from which ARexx was born"? Intel as the maker of the non-32 bit CPU's? The mac as "that B&W thing that looks like the Amiga but doesnt work like one"?
the Amiga wasn't about the Amiga, it was about the Amiga community that supported it, similar to linux today, perhaps thats why the Amiga community of yesterday now resides among the linux community, while those who must use Windows grumble about the rigid inflexible flakey mess that is Windows.
Anyway, all cars look the same, how can a pc maker claim trademark on something so insignificant as a colored case? Apple is getting downright nasty lately with anything that looks similar to its OS too, like Windowblinds "Aqua" theme, and eThemes "X" themes... They're new slogan should be "Dont THINK different, LOOK different"
READY.
POKE36879,8
READY.
SYS64738
--AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org
This is another shape they patented
The Apple case is not designed for functionality, but for looks. The shape of the machine is a way to identify the product as being an iMac just like the Apple Logo is. Don't they desrve some protection?
Obviously not enough caffiene today. You can only patent a shape if that shape does something functional. I meant "trademark" of course.
Hey, I bought one of those iMacs and it was useless at getting the creases out of my clothes!
But seriously, if this iron is sufficiently different in design from all other irons, and the iMac is based on it, then of course they should pay royalties. They're ripping off someone elses idea.
Just a thought: what would happen if say, Dell or Gateway decided to copyright the eggshell-beige cuboid box look for PCs? Is this a possibility, or is the whole idea just a big sweaty pile of echydna's poo?
Gee, what if they did? http://www.gateway.com/prod/hm_astro_Matrix.shtml
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
It must cover more than just aqua/clear plastic moulding, because the eONE's I've seen have all been an orangey colour.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
No, no monitor and system combos. Before apple, the most popular combo was made by compaq - in fact, two of them. One was designed before the MPC2 craze and didn't have a sound card or cd-rom, and the second one integrated speakers, sound card, cd-rom, voice modem... etc. Unisys did it before them with the ICON 2 and ICON 3.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
Whoops, my mistake, I excised the comment about my being English. But why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said? It's not the US-centric nature of slashdot I object to (eg content), but posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. And your view is not the prevailing view, it is just your view (note the 'i'--if you're going to use long words, you need to be able to spell them).
... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'. Can you even find an article by an English person doing this?
Presumably, you meant to say that you "have nothing personal against the rest of the world"...the rest of what you said is hysterical, at least to me. I can't imagine where you get your idea that merely stating that your opinion is a fact makes it a fact. Moral guidance from the US? Have you *heard* of MAI? Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO? Moral guidance is not the forte of *any* national government, and the US is included in that number.
I defy you to adduce a single example of 'England
It's lovely to see how confident you are, you cheeky monkey: all this stuff about "Today America is leader of the world" and "[guidance] is our moral duty". It's great. You carry on leading us, dear, that's what we all want and we need it, because let's face it, England and the rest of the world are clearly just Lefty Socialist Reprobate Wimps populated by Shiftless Morons who need A Strong America to Show Them The Way. Thanks a bunch, we're very grateful.
"...Patents are there to ensure that corporations, the lifeblood of our nation, can protect themselves from their competitors."
All this assumes that you're not a troll...Ahem. Which nation would that be? Did you know that WWW in fact stands for World Wide Web? So, incredibly enough, there are lots of people reading Slashdot who aren't Americans!!!
"Anything which allows them to do so is a good thing and should be encouraged by anyone who cares about the future of our great nation. Without these and other measures allowing corporations the freedom to make profit we will end up like the countries of Europe where socialist policies have left children to starve on the streets as their parents aren't allowed to work, all for the sake of the "greater good"."
Oh dear dear dear, where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh? Petal, did you know that in the USA, a significant part of the population has a life expectancy at birth as low as in the poorest countries in the world? Or that those great corporations that you are so proud of are in fact almost always multi-national entities and have no qualms about exporting Great American Jobs to other parts of the world--India, f'rinstance.
As someone once said:
"It's the Right wot gets the power
It's the Left wot gets the blame
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame?"
Don't worry, you're not annoying me. Interested to see your answers, and to follow up:
u t/review.html?in_review_id=259535&in_revie w_text_id=206656
1. Rush Limbaugh is a radio commentator, of sorts. If you want to find out more, I'm sure that there's more than enough info on the Internet to keep you busy. By the way, you didn't say where you get your facts from.
2. Hope you had a pint when you were in London. Have you ever been to continental Europe? It's very different. May I take this opportunity to lay to rest your need to pity those Londoners who looked down on you about being American--they were not jealous. Believe me, they were not. We have Radio 4, Private Eye, great restaurants and the Tube (still great, for all its many faults). We also have Shagger Norris and Red Ken. What more could one ask for?
3. How on earth did you draw conclusions about people in, say, Chad or Israel or Namibia based on a visit to London? How would you define success? And what human rights abuses did you see people putting up with on your visit to London?
4. I've no idea how many hits Slashdot gets on each post, but I'd guess that its in the thousands, and that a significant number are non-American. Actually reading what I'd written would give you a better clue to my likely identity than guessing on the basis that "that's who's usually here".
5. So you have not a SINGLE example to adduce, but are nonetheless able to draw conclusions about an entire nation. By contrast, I have an entire lifetime's worth of evidence (hearsay, I know, but this isn't a court of law) and I can report to you that I have NEVER heard an English person say anything that would give credence to the view that we still rule the world. So, we can go with your complete lack of evidence but evident prejudice in this matter, or you could actually listen to what I'm telling you when I say "The English don't think they still run an Empire". I'd say option two was better...
I've got a suggestion for you: try spending some time on a site like http://news.bbc.co.uk
You might find it useful.
Anyway, I'm off to Cassia Oriental
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/food/eato
Yum.
Thank you for providing that wonderful contribution to the debate. What on earth makes you think that slashdot is "aimed at the open-source community here in America"? Did someone from Slashdot tell you that? Or are you in fact talking out of your bottom? Given that Slashdot is on the WWW; given that the open-source movement is inherently non-national; and given that Linux, of particular interest to Slashdotters, was originated by a non-American, do you not think it's time to switch the arsehole off and start talking out of your mouth instead?
In answer to your question: urban Afro-American men are the community in question. And it's not quite as bad as 25-30 years, though it's still appalling.
Please tell me that you didn't say this seriously: "let's face it, would you rather live 25 years in the US or 25 years in some third world hellhole?". OK, fair enough, I've been duped: you must be a troll. You cannot have meant that as a serious comment. Please tell me and the rest of the world that you didn't mean it seriously...
Your US-centricity is not only risible, but laughable as well...how can you respond to a post in which I say that I am English by writing "The success of that company still helps you as an American citizen"?
Here's hoping that you and your family don't get caught out the next time your favourite multi-national employer decides to sack its US workforce to cut payroll bills. That would be awful.
Can I ask: have you ever been to Europe? If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works?
_________________________________________
This kind of crap is insane, patenting generic non-unique ideas, now the basic look of something? The patent office is going to wind up giving out so many frivilous patents that any corporation can sue over pretty much anything they want.
I remember a popcycle I ate a few times as a kid, it was white and nearly aqua; a blueberry and creme pop. I guess Apple will be sueing them next.
This is why Apple sucks. They sue everybody, here a related story about Apple sueing over the appearance of computer. They won't release any hardware information, they hardball about theme knockoffs here and here. They license and then charge for Firewire.
We need more of these alternative Apple advertisements. Apple just needs to get a clue.
Remember, don't feed the trolls.
Apple is just as monopolistic as Microsoft, if not more so... they have a lockdown on BOTH hardware and software for their particular platform.
Yeah - they both look like squashed jellybeans.
Heheee! :)
Apple invented the beige box
When they wanted to put thier verrrry first computer on the market, they needed custom cases, and the only thing they could afford at that time was recycled plastic on a sand mold.
Now, everything in computing comes in that flavor..
If everybody followed Apple then, maybe it's gonna happend again...
Jean-François Lauzé (AKA: Trix!)
Jean-François Lauzé (AKA: Trix!)
www.trix.qc.ca
Come on now, really. These things are entirely different. Bellbottoms != iMacs. Other designers can make bellbottoms because they're not trying to capitalize on another designer's particular style of bellbottom (i.e., people buy designer clothing because of some distinct mark that carries prestige, whether it be the label or a particular type of stitching or what have you).
On the other hand, eMachines made a computer that looked frighteningly like the iMac, repulsive translucent blue-green and all. Consumers see adverts for the iMac on TV, or on billboards, or in magazines. They say, "Wow, that's a pretty cool-looking computer. Maybe I should buy me one." When they get to the store (especially if it's one of those Office Superstore things), they're confronted with about 20 eMachines and a smiling salesman who just wants to move computers.
Of course, Joe Consumer is confused. Because he saw this ad, and it was for an iMac, but here is the eOne which looks the same and is simliarly priced. What does he do? He gives in to the salesman and buys the eOne and ruins his life.
I think what I'm trying to say is that people like the iMac. The iMac was the first, and it was unique. Chrysler can't produce an Audi TT, so why should eMachines be able to produce an iMac?
If interpreted broadly enough, won't Apple be able to apply the copywrite to any computer that's built into the moniter on the grounds that it "looks alike"? It's alright to me, though. I've had just about enough with the i-fruit, much less copies of i-fruit.
Just a thought: what would happen if say, Dell or Gateway decided to copyright the eggshell-beige cuboid box look for PCs? Is this a possibility, or is the whole idea just a big sweaty pile of echydna's poo?
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
Back in the seventies, I remember that IBM used to paint their big iron in grays with either pastel reds and blues. DEC used to do their PDP's in bright red. The first ones that I remember using beige as a standard for their products was Hewlett-Packard. I guess everybody else ripped them off. Now that would be a trade-dress lawsuit!
Is this the end for cheap imitations?? Voit will soon go out of business cuz Adidas is gonna sue the pants off them for putting stripes on their shoes.... and yes, what about the mother of cheap copies, WAL*MART? Will I see the doom of Arkansas's monster chain store?? OMG! -Erik L. Elmore
Obviously you know nothing at all about macintosch and apple so let me give you a background check. 1. the reason mac (it's the OS system fo APPLE) to be in a big hole for the last 10 years is because, Mr. (I will steal your entire codes and change a couple of things to create my own so i can become rich off of you) Bill Gates had to literally steal from mac. That is why he is the richest man in the world. If it wasn't for mac he would be a reagular guy making average money. 2. Do you honestly think that mac is sueing someone every month without having people work on things like o' lets say that little computer called the G4 and those things we chooose to call iBooks. Yeah they really suck it's too bad they suck so bad EVERYONE else is trying to immatate them. Obviously mac has been doing something right for them to once again to get screwed by the government because people like hewlitt packard decide to not come up with an original idea of there own. Come on apple is the best computer, you can put windows, linux, and mac on them all at once. so if you choose to decide to go against them then your obviously computer irrliterate. Think, other computer companies are immetating apple. windows stole from mac. where are you? might as well get the REAL thing before the computer world leaves you behind with my grandpaw.
- The Critic
I would like to announce my intentions to patent the "beige" computer look. Any other company violating my patent on the "beige" style of computer case, or using the word "beige" to describe their case will be prosecuted by my hordes of angry lawyers.
You have been warned.
Agreed. The precedent has long been set. Porsche prides themselves on the fact that the distinctive outline of the 911 is protected and cannot be copied.
Coke has their distinctive bottle shape protected. Remember when they did the 2L bottles that way in the States (they still do in Canada)? Pepsi couldn't directly copy that.
I guarantee that Aunt Jemima's unique bottle shape is also trademarked.
As an interesting non-computer sidenote, I'll be interested to see how Porsche fights Toyota on their MR2 which steals several design cues from the Boxster. (Every review I've seen also calls it the "Toyota Boxster".) I can pretty much guarantee you that the precedent set long before will continue to be enforced and this isn't some new idea raised by computing technology.
Oh, and yes, these things are subjective. That's why we have a jury. What better way to decide something subjective than to ask 12 people whether they think object A looks enough like object B to cause confusion.
-Derek
i-grub.com
And damn right too. Companies like Apple which put their valuable time and effort into producing a product as innovative as the iMac then they should be allowed to protect their product from others who seek to cash in on it.
The whole issue of design patents is likely to raise strong feelings here on /. given most people here's unthinking hatred of patents and the rights of a company to protect its work. Patents are there to ensure that corporations, the lifeblood of our nation, can protect themselves from their competitors. Anything which allows them to do so is a good thing and should be encouraged by anyone who cares about the future of our great nation. Without these and other measures allowing corporations the freedom to make profit we will end up like the countries of Europe where socialist policies have left children to starve on the streets as their parents aren't allowed to work, all for the sake of the "greater good".
If anything, the US needs more protection for its corporations rather than less. Now we are at the beginnings of a truly global market we must ensure that our champions come out on top with their dealings with foreigners. It is only by doing this that we can make sure our children grow up in the greatest nation on Earth.
Ummm... so if I'm understanding this right, Apple used TM and C to sue Daewoo and eMachines. And timothy, who posted this, goes off on a rant about how patents can ruin things. I think it's pretty clear that if you design a revolutionary computer, then wholesale copying of that design hurts the innovator, and provides nothing to the customers; look at how many all-in-ones have made it past Apple (all the ones that weren't blattently iMac clones), and then ask why a clone is needed.
--Matthew
Comparing a beige Mac and an iMac is like comparing a Pinto to a Jaguar - both machines have the same functionality under the hood, but their outward appearence is the unique factor (give or take a few horsepower :D).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
No kidding. I was *AMAZED* when I saw the iMac mouse for the first time. Here's a company that for years was espousing the virtues of ergonomics and good UI design. They come out with a "revolutionary" (ha!) new computer design -- and the mouse takes a 10 year step back in time.
Hell, it's worse than that - the "hockey puck" is actually less comfortable than that old block that came with the Mac Classic.
One of my coworkers is a Mac guy (I'm PC/Linux for the most part, except for Photoshop/Illustrator) and got one of the iMac-styled G3s. Nice comp. Fast and snappy for the most part, and if they'd remove the "handles" the thing would look pretty snazzy as well.
What floored him was the keyboard/mouse. Tiny laptop-style keyboard, and a hockey puck mouse.
He has since replaced the mouse with an older Mac mouse (which is much more ergonomic) though he has been eyeing my Intellimouse Explorer lately (say what you will about M$ - that mouse kicks serious a$$).
The keyboard is the same one that ships with the iMacs -- it feels like a laptop keyboard. He says he got used to it after a while, but I'll keep my 10 pound huge footprint IBM keyboard, thanks. =)
Try starting up a shop to build cars with the classic lines of a Ferrari, and see how many seconds you last.
Companies do just that. Look on the web for replica Ferraris, Jaguars and Lamborghinis.
Chris Wareham
That touches on the part that really annoys me about this case. I think, deep down, it's at the root of everyone's disturbance with these computer makers' choices:
Daewoo and E-Machines made the decision to invest in legal expenses rather than in a creative effort.
In the end, the courts discerned this, and shut them down. It's not just a victory for Apple, it's a victory for Creativity in the marketplace.
I can see the fnords!
It is a little late to be responding, however, if you had bothered to read the post to which I responded you would have noticed that I was answering a specific question regarding DeCSS with a pointer to where the reader could get the answers they were (presumably) looking for. The reader may indeed have confused the DeCSS issue with the "Trade Dress" issue of this thread, however, three is absolutely nothing in my post, or the site I referred them to, which would have led to their confusion.
The original questioner can clarify whatever "confusion" they may have on the issue be reading a wealth of material at the aforementioned site. It is a stretch reaching lightyears to assign any level of additional confusion to my short post, and perhaps more representative of your own confusion than anyone else's.
Finally, if you define referring someone with a question to a reasonably authoritative source on the subject to be sowing confusion, then perhaps that explains the arrogant, and confused, content of your own rather bitter reply.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
No.
(The short answer.)
http://opendvd.org
(Why the answer is "No", with all the facts and details you could ever want.)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You are absolutely correct about the shape. It has been with the industry in the 80-es and before and was forgotten in favour of the disgusting IBM PC design which is a badly revamped industrial controller.
On the translucent plastic topic does anyone have an idea when the iDust came out? Namely, the horribly disgusting design Dixons uses for their vacuum cleaners: translucent plastic, aqua or tangerine. Sucks great. Literally of course.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
They can't. Prior art. Sorry, no bonus.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
because of all the damn frivolous patent/trademark/copyright lawsuits lately it seems like people are jumping all over Apple for defending their design. In my opinion Apple has every right to defend their original design. When I first saw the eOne I laughed my ass off because I thought "wow what an iMac knock-off". It isn't like Apple is trying to patent the all-in-one computer idea, they are merely trying to prevent market confusion. Look at the Toyota Celica and the Mitsubishi Eclipse, depending on what model you see it can be hard to tell the two cars apart, which creates product confusion. Whichever company came up with the design's shape first could conceivably say "Hands off dude, no dinero no toke" and file a lawsuit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Ah yes, the restorative powers of the British judicial system, current poster boy one A. Pinochet, of Santiago, Chile. If I ever get sick, I'll just do a bank in London...
No, that's not a terribly good mouse. The first ones were completely horrible; no tactile feedback at all that you were holding it crooked. The newer ones, weirdly enough, are much better: they put this dimply thing on the "front" so you can easily tell you're holding it crooked. That makes a big difference. Of course, it's still pretty lame to make the thing so easy to grab crooked in the first place...
Now, I'm not supremely picky about keyboards despite being a pretty good (>70 wpm) touch typist. I was pretty sure I'd hate the iMac keyboard, since it seemed lame at the store. But since I've used it at home at a work station with a keyboard shelf, I have to admit that it isn't really any problem. I certainly don't miss all the extra keypad/Print Screen crappiness on the side, and having a narrower keyboard means the mouse is closer to my hand. It's still in the "penalty zone", (Tom Christiansen's term) but not nearly as much so as with a "battleship" keyboard.
Now, if you want to know what's really lame about the iMac design, it's the confusability of the modem port and the ethernet jack combined with the expectation that a modem has both a line in and a line out.
Babar
*Companies* ultimately exist for the sole purpose of making *money*. Apple has made *money* on the iMac, like it or not. Other *companies* see this and they too want to make *money*. Therefore they copy the iMac to make... *money*. That is their *goal*, afterall, and I think they did have a long look at their *goals* because they probably started a *company* to make *money*.
:)
Is there something difficult here that you missed or perhaps I'm missing?
--SONET (in a smart-ass mood because there's no coffee to be had around here)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
imagine if you can't copyright designs... Then every single car on the highway is going to start looking exactly like Ferrari's, Porsches, Diablos, ... :-)
>Was anyone else designing iMac like computers before the iMac came out?
Well, not the _exact_ same design that I know of the top of my head, but...
Basic shape; yep, been done. Its an almost exact clone of several terminal types, and pretty close to a shrunken version of several computer types that have been around since late 80's early 90's.
Transparent cases (in colors); yep, been done. Been around since a loooong time.
A combination? Hmmm... is that really a design innovation? Would the Basic shape or Transparent cases people be able to sue? If it is, does it apply to putting a Mac inside such a case, or any computer? Would putting an x86 computer in a transparent case of that shape be a new thing or not?
My guess is that Apples suit would not have been upheld in the end, theres far too much previous art, just like the bellbottoms. Then again, the emachines and daewoo clones were _obviously_ trying to make a buck off it, so maybe it would have been upheld. Had someone come around a year or two later with the same design? No way would Apple have a case.
and every so often, someone comes out with a new look. Maybe it's a new fabric, maybe it's a new garment. I belive that Vivian Westwood was the first to come out with punk, yet soon many people were doing it. Once the bikini didn't exist, now it does.
Expensive fashion shows try to completely redesign the entire look of clothes. Any designer that copied another would immediately lose all credit for origionality.
There are many designers who are paid to design clothes for chain stores etc who are paid to mimic the latest paris fashion styles. The designer for Kmart, or the Delta Burke collection is not paid to win awards for originallity, they're paid to produce functional clothing at the price range dictated by their sponser.
This is no different to the cases above. Apple was the original designer, making high priced stuff for a select few, and there were many people deciding that this new fashion was something they wanted to sell, so they paid their designers to design something inspired by the original.
Cars are allowed to all look the same because all cars look the same. If GM were to copy the looks of the GT40 then yes, Ford should get upset.
I hate to break it to you, but PC's do all look the same, within a few basic types. Pretty much the same as cars. A few years ago one company introduced the minivan, a new look in cars. Within a few years, all the major car manufacturers had a minivan, with the almost identical new shape. A few years ago one company introduced the translucent case with colour highlights, a new look in computers. Within a few years, all the major computer manufacturers had introduced a similar case.
Why? It's just a fashion. It's no different to big fashion designers deciding that bell bottoms are in, and other fashion designers designing bell bottoms.
Cars are all basically the same shape nowadays, with the few exceptions being obvious exceptions. Should Ford be able to sue GM because Ford was the first to use a particular shaped door?
Films often come in batches of similar themes. Should the producers of Armageddon be able to sue the producers of Deep impact because they're both about asteroids hitting the earth?
Just because you spent time doing something does not stop others from spending their time doing something similar.
Design patents protect only the ornamental features of an apparatus. It is a defense to a design patent claim that the scope of the patent embraces utilitarian features. The article incorrectly suggests that patents for a design are not subject to examination -- the design must be novel, original and ornamental, and this includes the unobviousness standard set forth in Section 103 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. s. 171.
Trade dress and product configuration protection under the Lanham Act and common law of most states is not new by any means. The configuration, for example, of the Fantastic spray-bottle was the subject of a landmark case decades ago. A Supreme Court case addressing trade dress, Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, made clear that designs would be treated under the trademark act just as names, logos and other configurations. The Supreme Court is presently revisiting that very question to flesh out this issue.
As with design patents, it is an absolute defense to a claim of unfair competition or trademark infringement that a design is functional.
The issue under all these theories (simplifying to some extent) is whether the consumers would be confused as to the source or origin of the respective products. With design patents, the analysis is similar.
It is highly unlikely that transparent computers would infringe per se, even taking the broadest view of these applicable laws. The question is whether the design is distinctive, embodies substantial good will, and whether the defendant has tried to usurp that good will by its conduct.
While these oversimplifications of the law are not entirely accurate, it does fairly characterize the applicable standards. As you can see, Apple had a case. Perhaps the defendants also had a case. That is what the courts are all about. The law in this area is sound, designed to protect the marketplace for free and fair competition, the consumer as well as the intellectual property owner.
Yes, it is possible to wildly overreach in this arena, as with any other claim at law. This doesn't appear to be such a case.
There was a notorious case a few years ago regarding the Jif lemon packaging (for those who don't know this is lemon juice in a bottle the shape of a lemon). Jif applied for and got protection on the lemon, and sucessfully took a supermarket to court to stop them selling (or rather, passing-off) their version of lemon-juice-in-a-lemon. This was in 1990, so it's fairly old and established practice.
So in this context the success of Apple getting and enforcing a registered design on the iMac isn't too much of a surprise. (I know it's a different juristiction, but trademark and design rules are pretty homogeneous throughout the west).
More than you would ever want to know about Designs and trademarks can be found here.
Personally I don't think that they have that good a case - the idea of these design registrations is distinctiveness and to prevent passing off. I don't think that the purchaser of the Daewoo products thought they were buying an iMac. Obviously the judge disagreed.
If anyone recalls the dumb terminal days of the '70's, they should readily recognize the iMac as a straight rip-off of the ADDS Viewpoint and older Data General terminals. The form factor is nearly identical and if I was DG or ADDS, I'd be crawling up Apple's backside.
The only innovation in the iMac's "trade dress" is the use of the translucent plastics. The shape has been around the computer industry for 25 years.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
I figured they were close enough for a lawsuit for sure (even wondered about that when Apple started sueing).
I wonder if maybe Gateway hasn't licenced the look from Apple for some $.
Does anyone know why they're not suing Gateway for their Astro
PC?
The Rowenta Surfline iRon existed years before the iMac, so shouldn't Apple rather pay some license fees to Rowenta? And btw, looked from closeby, the iMac is butt ugly.
Say no to software patents.
After Daewoo and Emachines, Apple Computer is going after Rowenta
A trademark is a way to identify the source of products and services. It is meant to protect consumers more than the business holding the trademark. The question of trademark violation comes down to one simple question, "will consumers be confused into thinking a product or service they are purchasing is actually the product or service of a company other than the one they are purchasing it from?"
A very large majority of people shown an eOne computer will look at it and think, "hey, that's an iMac!" This is a very clear case of consumer confusion and it is all that Apple needs to prove in order to win a trademark violation case.
This is entirely different from a copyright. Apple can copyright photos of their computers or the manuals for their computers, or even the software on the computer, but the computer itself is not subject to copyright laws.
Patent laws, while similar to trademark laws, also serve a completely different function... specifically that of function. You may patent a device or process. You can't patent a 'look'.
Here is a good site with links to all sorts of Patent and Trademark information. Recommended reading for most of the people posting here since there seems to be a lot of confusion over what this case is really about.
A central point is being missed; namely that Apple's design doesn't have to be innovative or original in order for their claim in this matter to be valid.
This is not a case over patents, where the matter under patent must be original and non-obvious. Nor is it a case over copyrights, where the creator is the first owner of the copyright.
This is a case about trade dress, where I'd guess that a lot of principles of trademark law still apply. Trademark law is a Good Thing; it protects both the company and the consumer against deception.
This decision does not mean "you can't sell a computer that looks like an iMac." It means "you can't sell a computer that looks so much like an iMac that consumers may buy yours thinking they are buying an iMac."
Sure, it would be clearer what eMachines and Daewoo were attempting if they marked their products as "Appell" computers or with a bitten-fruit logo. But these are not the only ways to imitate another company's product to the point where you are damaging both the other company and the customers you trick. The court's injunction means that, in their opinion, eMachines and Daewoo went far enough in imitating the iMac that it might have fooled customers.
By the way -- who has actually seen the computers under discussion? I have; I've seen the eOne at the local Circuit City. If I wasn't computer-literate, and didn't know exactly what an iMac should look like besides 'translucent plastics in blue and white single-unit computer', then I might be fooled.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Hats off to Apple for making their iMAC look more interesting than anything else on the market.
:)
:)
However:
How relevant is this copy-chasing legal brigade when you consider that the eONE, which may have looked almost identical to the iMAC when it was first shown (very little difference in fact) , was then revised to look as the product does now on their website compared to the iMAC (please spare me the 'Future of the Internet
It is clear that the eONE has been substatially restyled to avoid having the lines and general 'look' of the iMAC: How can Apple say that this is a copy violation? Compaq, Dell, Olivetti, IBM, Fujitsu etc all might as well start taking each other to court over who owns rights to the 'grey box on the desk' design.
At the end of the day though, it seems obvious that the eONE brought this upon itself, by setting out looking so much like the iMAC, a restyle late on wasn't going to save it in the eyes of the Apple lawyers.
My appologys for not being able to find a picture of the original eONE design
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I know packaging is subject to fair trade law. When at United Biscuits we sued a supermarket for attempting to pass off a biscuit as Penguin (TM) biscuits by creating a product similar, calling it puffin and broadly copying the design brief. We won, but because there was deemed to be a attempt to pass their product. With the i-mac they seem to have won a case on copyright of design alone, which as I said is a pretty difficult one to argue.
Like your exaple of the Jiff, it is a case of passing, whereas with i-mac it was intellectual rather than commercial... Hmmmm.
Working for the (other) man
Did anyone else notice a passing resemblance, a certain, je ne sais quois, between the new Volkswagon beetle and the iMac? Something about the lines that makes me think about that car whenever I see an iMac. I wonder whose inspiration the iMac designers were drawing on when they came up with this thing. Then again I cannot really imagine why, other than laziness, that anyone would want to clone of an iMac let alone own one. To whit, blech!
:wq
This is different from fashions. Fashions are usually based on standard looks. The iMac was an attempt to totally redefine the look.
The bell bottom is a standard design thats been around for years. If I came up with a totally new look for an item of clothing, I would be upset is someone else copied me. Expensive fashion shows try to completely redesign the entire look of clothes. Any designer that copied another would immediately lose all credit for origionality.
Cars are allowed to all look the same because all cars look the same. If GM were to copy the looks of the GT40 then yes, Ford should get upset.
Films are allowed to be the same if they come in batches of similar themes. Armageddon obviously wasn't an origional idea since Deep Impact was in production at the same time. Was anyone else designing iMac like computers before the iMac came out? What if I was to make a film about a bunch of Roughnecks saving the Earth from an asteroid? Am I allowed to?
Just because you spent time doing something does not stop others from spending their time doing something similar.
Absolutely. People should spend their time coming up with a new look, rather than spending no time at all copying the look of something thats been done before. If they designed their machines as silver pyramids with a CD-Rom at the top, and connectors on the front then that would have been worthwhile, and Apple should not have been allowed to copy them.
>>Given Apple's emphasis on ergonomics
Ha! Obiviously the author never used an iMac Mouse.
So I can actually own a shape! This is great news. I have these design ideas I call 'cube', 'triangle' and 'ball'.
When you smile, the world laughs at you.
Apple's patent on "Computer Enclosure", can be downloaded from HERE.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
The points in my original submission or this story were edited by the /. staff - most of it was done quite well and added important content, but a couple of things were lost.
/. as a heretic (being in general a supporter of our current patent system) and feel strongly that much of the "reform" wanted by the community here would simply remove any viable protections for small/startup/entrepreneurial companies while leaving the large ones protected by thier inherent economic/political might. For all its warts, the US patent system is one of the most effective systems in history to ensure a level playing field for all, so we should tamper with it only with extreme caution and certainty.)
/., and does, in fact, matter.
I made the point that the CNET article did not explicitly reference design patents, but I expected that Apple and others had them and could be expected to enforce them, sometimes to the detriment of consumers. The point was to open a more general discussion of alternative mechanisms which could be used to render technologies proprietary. (Remember the big flap a couple of years ago - Motorola sued Qualcomm for building a phone that folded, saying it violated their design patents on the StarTAC. Fortunately, the courts ruled that MOT couldn't own the generic idea of a folding phone (since everyone knew, and their product name even alluded to, the fact that they stole the idea from Star Trek.) Still, the MOT attack delayed QCOM's Q-phone until it was no longer a serious competitive threat. Not that that's hurt their stock price any...[grin])
You're right that the CNET article doesn't have anything to do with patents, but I was intentionally trying to raise the issue of some of these other mechanisms by which we can expect companies large and small to attempt to excercise control or block competitors. As I was quoted in Timothy's post, I'm particularly concerned about potential abuse of design patents. (BTW, I am on record here on
Also, my article submission indicated that I thought this particular decision was well-justified, since there was a clear attempt to copy the iMac, even though I don't think for a minute that anyone would confuse these Windows boxes for real Macintoshes. Still, even if a good call in this case, this could be a slippery slope since it is necessarily subjective.
Finally, if this sort of limitation becomes viewed as effective, I raised the spectre of ID squatters protecting everything they can think of this way and then selling all the good and necessary ones off to the highest bidder. (I considered doing this myself a number of years ago, since PDA's still don't have nearly the functionality I described in writing nearly a decade ago. If I'm not going to get venture money myself, then I could at least sue someone who did - but that's really cheezy now isn't it? And yes, in that context, a "z" in "cheezy" seems just right...)
The point of discussion I was trying to provoke is, "Are there any effective safegaurds against abuse of other parts of our IP system that may not have recieved as much scrutiny as patents for software?"
In this context, in contrast to what some other posters seem to think, this topic is appropriate for
Oh, and for the record, I think most of these clear and whatever things are kind of ugly, although the ones that are plain clear (no other colors, like the Palm IIIe) are interesting. And as an aside, it's a shame Apple didn't learn from DEC's experience with puck mice - they used them on their VAXstations and DECstations at least up until the Alpha came out, and they also were a pain to grab and use without looking.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Maybe.
Maybe not.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
The initial post and the responses show that most people don't know the difference between Copyright, Trademark, and Patents. A trademark is totally different from a copyright. If you are doing trade or performing services under an identity, that identity can be protected. That identity can be stuff like your company name, logo, tag lines, colors and in Apple's or Coke's case the look of your product package. You can't trademark it unless you're using it in business. If you want to go the next step you can spend the money to register your trademark and you then get to change your little TM to an R. Copyright is about protecting a creative work, not a business identity. It can be a written work, a drawing, or a song - or a recording of a song which gets a (p) instead of a (c). Technically anything you create is instantly copyrighted the second you create it, but of course you probably still want to take better measures than that. Patent is about protecting inventions/innovations and has already been explained to death here. Suffice it to say it performs a different purpose and getting a patent is a different process with different results.
The classic example is the case against Guiness who were sued by an artist who showed them a dance piece he had created for one of their advert campaigns.
Guiness rejected this and went on to make the advert anyway with subtle differences, although with the concept and execution almost the same.
The artist lost the claim.
Although this is the company who's ex director recovered from parkinsons after being let out of gaol early on grounds of ill health...
Working for the (other) man
Thank you Lotus, now of IBM, for giving us the "Look and feel" copyright lawsuits -- which blazed the trail for this.
No they didn't. This has nothing to do with "look and feel" -- it's about the patentable design of a designed object. Try starting up a shop to build cars with the classic lines of a Ferrari, and see how many seconds you last.
Apple spent time and money coming up with the design of the iMac, and came up with something that looked great, so people wanted to buy it. If you copy that design, you're living off their time and money, and someone else's design vision. They should have some law -- be it copyright, design, or trademark -- to protect their work
More broadly, why does slashdot give a fuck? This isn't a software patent, or an algorithm patent. Nobody's ability to write code has been compromised. It's still possible to produce copies of the iMac which will run its software -- but they won't look like iMacs, because they won't be iMacs. There is no sense in which preventing people from ripping off designers is infringing freedom of speech.
If people have a problem with patents in general, let them make it. But please don't hijack the cause of opposition to software patents for your ideological crusade. Get the classic car enthusiasts on your side, or something. The iMac's deisgn is not information. It's not code. It doesn't want to be free.
So Apple now owns the idea of a tranlucent-polycarbonate-ovoid PC. I see no problem with this. While many folks are claiming Apple has patented the all-in-one PC they haven't - just their particular (and very distinctive/very unique) take on it. Should someone else come out with a glittery-squishy palmtop (the Koosh-top?) they can patent that.
Nationial Public Radio's Friday, March 05, 1999 "Talk of the Nation" program has an excellent over-view of the issue. Their program blurb reads:
The URL is http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn-- Michael
BTW - the Koosh ball is also patented
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Coca Cola sucesfully sued, under the same "trade dress" laws Apple is using to go after Daewoo or eMachines or whoever, to protect the SHAPE of the Coca Cola bottle!
That's probably the precident Apple used in the case. That and the fact that the iMac knockoff artist company ADMITTED IN A PRESS RELEASE that they were going to try to ride the wave of the iMac to sucess.
The rip-off artists basically shot themselves in the foot by: a) not doing their research on trade dress law, and b) mouthing off to the press.
Also, did you know that UPS has a patent (or trademark, I forget which) on that brown color they use for everything from their trucks to their uniforms? Yup. No one else can legally use "UPS Puke Brown", without UPS's permission.
And, from the looks of some of the other posts, it appears that Slashdot has to be reminded again:
Under copyright/trademark law, if you do not aggressively defend your intellectual property, you LOSE the rights to that same property!
Apple has NO CHOISE but to go after those who would violate it's trademarks. Nor does anyone else who produces intellectual property. Not even Linus, remember when he had to put the smackdown of a couple of nare-do-wells who were going to auction off a bunch oh *linux*.* domain names for nefarious ends?
IANAL, but AFAIK, the ONLY IP that you do NOT have to aggesively defend in order to keep the rights, is a patent, which a) is a fscked up system to begin with, and b) expires much sooner than other IP anyway.
john
Imagine all the people...
There is way too much confusion on /. about how the intellectual property regime works. Let me clarify for all you knee-jerks the differences between copyright/patent/trademark/trade secrets: Copyright protects authors automatically (no registration required) for original works in a fixed medium (e.g. a play, a novel, source code.) Patent gives an individual (or company) a short monopoly (17 years?) during which no one can copy your patented invention unless they have your permission. The logic of patents is to encourage innovators to share their ideas with the public in exchange for temporary protection from free riders. Remember, after the patent expires, we can all use the invention freely. Trade secrets are protected by state law and include any proprietary information of commercial value that is learned during the course of employment or some other special relationship. Trademark protects the "goodwill" of a name or design. If Joe Average thinks of your company when he sees the word "Grblatz," you have trademark rights in "Grblatz." Similarly, if Joe Average thinks of Apple when he sees rounded aqua and semi-opaque plastic computers with built-in monitors and small keyboards, Apple has a trademark on the iMac design. When Apple sued Daewoo and eMachines, it was because Apple felt that those two companies were building machines that looked like the iMac in order to confuse consumers into buying the eOne or eMachine ON THE BASIS OF APPLE'S IMAC MARKETING EFFORTS. There was no design patent issue here. I am beginning to see that many people on slashdot are lashing out at the patent system based on the perceived abuses of Amazon, etc. I submit that the real problem with patent is not the system in general, but the legnth of the monopoly rights granted to a patent holder. Two decades might have been appropriate for light bulbs and typewriters, but software evolves too quickly and by the time software patents expire, the software is long since useless. The war cry for patent reform should be "1 year monopoly rights for software!" Catchy, isn't it?
However, with that said, this could set a dangerous precident going back to the GUI look and feel. Sure, it's too late for Microsoft or Apple or Xerox to stop GUI operating systems with the typical functionality, but let's take the Aqua theme that Apple developed for it's OS. A while back, Apple asked various theme sites to remove the Aqua clones, but based on the specific targets of the removal, these themes used the Apple or MacOS logo in the theme, which could be considered a trademark violation; Apple apparently didn't have problems with people copying the theme, just the trademarks logos.
Now sure, this case was a out-of-court settlement, no precident has been set, but this could get Apple or Microsoft or some other OS design a bit braver and take more drastic action against copy-cat clones of the OS system beyond just the standard C sure, we still have the result of the Apple/MS Look-and-Feel lawsuit that set a precident, but those can be overturned as times change.
Even beyond just the OS, what about application software? Can Netscape sue MS over look-and-feel of IE compared to NS? Can WinZip sue the countless zip clones? What about a unique feature of an application program that is then extended by others to be a common control in later application programs?
I think the key thing comes down to with something like this is that is there a difference between the design of a physical object and the design of a virtual object. As said in one of the DCMA article discussions yesterday, if someone takes a physical object, a new physical object has to be created to replace it, while one can easily take a copy of a virtual object, and still leave that virtual object for others. Because physical objects move much slower than virtual ones, is it more important to protect the designs of physical objects over virtual ones? I believe so, but there needs to be some precident to distinquish the two cases. We only have a few such precidents in place, and unless a law is passed soon regarding this, the solution will be decided by frivolous lawsuits.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Coca-Cola was the first company to ever do something like this. They patented the famous "Coke bottle". That was years ago, though, and I don't seem to remember hearing about any complaints.
Do I think this one's right? I'm not sure. This isn't "look and feel." It's also not a software thing. And it's certainly a blatant violation of something, anyway. It should probably be more of a trademark violation than a patent violation, though.
The intent for eMachines and FuturePower to rip off Apple's design and profit from it was quite clear; even more blatant than Windows. For that alone they deserve a smackdown; this was nothing more than outright plagiarism. It's also about more than translucent plastic, which many Slashdotters seem to be forgetting.
But as I said, is it right? I don't know this time. I think it just might be.
Can we please be more careful about what words are thrown around here? There is a vast difference between trademarks, copyrights and patents. The slashdot item title says "copyright", which is totally wrong. The description and a bunch of the posts here say "patent", which is also totally wrong. Everyone here is aware that these are different things, aren't they?
</rant>
This is a trademark dispute. You trademark a logo, a name, a distinctive look (like coke bottles, or UPS puke brown), et cetera. These are things that the general public notices to recognize your product. The purpose of trademark law is to keep you from purchasing some other product by mistake from a disreputable company that disguises its product as the one you actually want.
You're in a hurry, so you rush into the grocery store, grab a case of those distinctively shaped Coca-cola bottles, pay, and leave, and only when you get back to your car do you notice that you've actually bought some of my Greg's Sparkly Brown Water. (Costs the same, tastes like crap!) Without trademark law, there's nothing that Coca-cola can do about it, and I can profit off of unobservant consumers that are foolish enough to make this mistake. (Muahahahaha.)
Obviously there is a big gray area around the question: how similar do products have to be before ignorant consumers start to mistake one for the other? Beige boxes are so common that no one would think they're looking at a particular brand just because the box is square and beige. The judge who granted the preliminary injunction in this case, though, decided that Apple had done enough marketing, and the iMac look was distinctive enough, that consumers could be confused by the look of the eMachines and Daewoo boxes into thinking that they were iMacs and buy them by mistake.
This case was only about one product trying to impersonate another to take advantage of ignorant consumers, it has nothing at all to do with copyright or patent law, and nothing keeps anyone from building another all-in-one computer, or building a blue transparent computer - but trying to cash in on someone else's distinctive look is, IMHO, clearly wrong.