Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue
wabrandsma points out this Reuters story, according to which: Apple is not able to launch its new smartwatch in Switzerland until at least the end of this year because of an intellectual property rights issue, Swiss broadcaster RTS reported on its website. The U.S. tech giant cannot use the image of an apple nor the word 'apple' to launch its watch within Switzerland, the home of luxury watches, because of a patent from 1985, RTS reported, citing a document from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.
The article doesn't give any details about what the word apple or an apple logo has to do with a patent. A trademark I could understand, but a patent?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
will have to cross the border if they want to check out their sudden biggest competitor.
Looking at the RTS article (in French) it's clearly a trademark issue, not a patent.
Normally patents expire 20 years after filing, so Reuters should have smelled a rat.
- Paul
It's a trademark issue about the name, not a patent issue. See http://www.steigerlegal.ch/2015/04/04/falschmeldung-apple-watch-und-das-schweizer-patent/ (in german) for a picture of the trademarked logo (and run the page through Google Translate for the details).
This is the only meaty part of the article, and it's pretty damn slim and stringy.
"The patent is set to finish on Dec. 5 of this year. It currently belongs to William Longe, who owns watch brand Leonard that first filed the patent ...
The world's largest watchmaker Swatch unveiled its riposte to Apple's smartwatch last month, announcing a plan to put cheap programmable chips in watches that will let wearers from China to Chicago make payments with a swipe of the wrist."
The Swiss watchmaking industry strikes back?
The swiss sometimes have some pretty smart patent office employees.
As with West Virginia blocking Telsa, small places banning luxury items are really only spitting in the wind. Do you really think any Swiss person wanting an Apple watch is _not_ willing to make the short trip to Zurich or Lyons to get one?
Couldn't happen to nicer group of patent trolling litigious bastards.
Just charge them $1 billion then let them sell their watches.
Have thy been allowed to sell iPads and other Apple hardware? Is it only a problem now that they have tried strapping their logo to a wrist that is has become an issue?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This is right up Apple's own dirty alley.
Put an Apple on Tim Cook's head. If a random Apple employee can shoot it with a crossbow, then the trademark is void. If Tim gets it in the face, then Swiss gnomes get to lick chocolate off the slopes of Michelle Obama.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Although the Girard-Perregaux Complication Bombastique Impériale was a marvel of its time, the complex geartrains required to write and mail letters, answer telephone calls and listen to the wearer's heartbeat was impossible to keep repaired and lubricated in the field, besides resulting in a device too heavy for any real-world wrist to carry. Though the concept watch was a hit at the Basel trade fair that year, the very idea of having to use a tiny set of platinum screwdrivers to connect the device to a cash register to use the payment feature was a major impediment to sales.
I wonder what Apple is going to do in the UK, which requires marking of gold items with hallmarks.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
...not even remotely close.
This is more like the difference between McDonalds and members of the Chaine.
The beef versus chicken sandwich analogy only works for the likes of Swatch and Timex.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...see the sweet irony in Apple getting hit by patent/trademark issues?
We're getting closer.
My hero.
Yet another reason to move there. I am so god-damned sick of seeing Apshit's commercial...
In Switzerland, patents expire in 20 years. Trademarks don't expire, but must be periodically renewed. So why is a patent from 1985 still valid?
The summary and the Reuters article are *wrong*. It's not a patent, it's a trademark. Here's the original RTS' report (in french).
Here's an announcement from Steiger Legal (in Standard German) that indeed Reuters translated it wrong and then everybody sheepishly repeated it every where.
In 1985, the watch maker "Leonard Timepieces" registered the usage of an apple and the word "Apple" in the domain of timepieces (probably thinking about a "Wilhelm Tell"-themed timepiece design at some point in time).
This trademark was registered on 5 december 1985. The next trade mark periodic renewal (once every 10 years) is on 5 december this year (at which point, if Leonard Timepieces indeed choose to renew it, it will remain valid until 2025).
Now given the Swiss legal system, Apple aren't automatically forbidden to sell their watches in Switzerland. Leonard *could* file a complain (if they think that there's a reasonable risk that Apple is trying to earn money by exploiting consumer confusion and trying to abuse Leonard's brand recognition of *their* apple watch), in which case Apple *could* be barred from selling the watch. But now, there's nothing automatic.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Non-use of the _trademark_ for a commercial product puts the trademark,up for grabs after 30 years.
Not in Switzerland.
In Switzerland, a trademark is granted for 10 years, and the can subsequently be extended, again for 10 year on each successive extension.
The trademark was registered on 5 december 1985.
The next periodic renewal is due on 5 december 2015.
If Leonard Timepiece (the original owner) chooses to do so, they can renew it, and it will get extended to 5 december 2025.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Apple will just proceed to counter sue the Swiss and claim their watches copy the time indicating aspects of the Iwatch.
So the guy could renew the trademark and force Apple to pay him money to take over the trademark?
Leonard Timepiece could complain if they think that Apple is trying to earn money by taking advantage of consumer confusion and is trying to copycat Leonard's deisgn of "Apple" watch (something Wilhelm Tell themed, perhaps ?!)
Otherwise nothing happens.
Given that they are not exactly in the same market, (Leonard Timepiece produce luxury timepieces, Apple produces electronics) the risk of confusion is low anyway and probably they won't give a fuck about it.
Candied apples with the APPLE trademark, anyone?
It's a different category of product. The trademark was registered for "timepieces and components of timepieces".
And they don't need to produce anything. Leonard already owns the trademark, and they are allowed to renew it for yet another 10 year in december 2015 (so keep owning the trademark until 2025).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
For the record, the luxury watches industry was jump-started in switzerland when Calvin decided to outlaw jewelry as an excessive display of wealth, not inline with his protestant views of the world.
Rich people then turned to watches as a mean to display their wealth, luxury watches were born.
as in: "HEY, IT'S NOT A PIECE OF JEWELRY! IT'S A [rather very expensive] TOOL TO GIVE TIME!! IT'S JUST A [luxury] WATCH !!!"
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Trademarks are registered by domain. This "apple" and apple-logo trademark was registered for the domain "timepiece and components" by the whatch maker "Leonard Timepieces".
iPads aren't in the same category anyway.
The only thing remotely related was the wrist strap that could convert the small square iPad Nano into a touch screen watch. And even back then Leonard didn't care to sue.
In fact, in Switzerland, a patent violation is define as someone try to profit by abusing consumer confusion and trying to copycat another product to try to leverage its brand recognition.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
In switzerland, they do. And it's 10 year, at which point the owner can choose to extend it again for the next period of 10 year.
As this trademark was registered on 5 december 1985, the next such 10 year cycle finishes on 5 december 2015. At which point the owner - Leonard Timepieces - can choose to extend it yet again until 5 december 2025.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
As someone that eats both chicken sandwiches and roast beef sandwiches from time to time, if I want one, the other will not do.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Apple is a Buick class company that tries to brand themselves as a BMW class company.
Thanks to your idiotic government, you, the world's foremost connoisseurs of fine timepieces, will be denied the right to own the most revolutionary timepiece in history. Fortunately, you have the means to change the government's mind. By law, each of your men between 20 and 30 years old has received military training and is required to maintain a military-grade automatic weapon at the ready in their homes...
As others have mentioned it is a trademark not patent issue and the problem doesn't just go away on December the 5th as trademarks are renewable.
However trademarks have a requirement to be used otherwise they can be cancelled. If "Leonard Timepieces" have not used the word Apple or an Apple symbol on any products in recent years then Apple can apply to have the trademark cancelled. Apple were probably quietly waiting to see if "Leonard Timepieces" would renew their trademark before going to the trouble of applying for it to be cancelled.
Confidant?
One is producing over priced pocket computer, sold a trendy and hip way to get distracted by checking twitter, and posting annoying fb status updates about your health.
The other is an over priced piece of micro mechanics sold as a substitute of jewelry (the origin of the boom of switch watches).
Smal LED screen vs. small piece of gold.
Yeah, confusion is very likely.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]