Swiss Federal Railways to meet with Apple over iOS 6 clock design
Swiss Federal Railways, the owner of an iconic clock face design, is set to meet with Apple to reach an agreement over the digital clock face found in the iPad version of its iOS 6 mobile operating system.
Left: Apple's iOS 6 clock. Right: the clock design owned by SBB.
Officials with the railway service, known as SBB, told global news service AFP (via Cnet) that they will meet with Apple in the coming weeks to discuss the matter. No agreement has been made, but SBB spokeswoman Patricia Claivaz said the two sides would "talk about it."
Earlier, inaccurate reports had claimed that the SBB was demanding financial compensation for Apple over the clock design found in iOS 6. Claivaz dismissed those reports as "speculation."
Rather, the SBB is "proud" that Apple has chosen to use the iconic clock design in iOS 6, she said, noting that it was flattering to have a "brand as important as Apple" use their design.
"There are a lot of brands that use the SBB logo, though nothing like Apple," she added. "It's not just about exchanging money, rather drawing up a contract stating where the logo can be used, under what conditions and for how long."
The original clock design was created in 1944 by Swiss engineer Hans Hilfiker. It remains the property of SBB, and is still used in the Swiss operation's train stations.
SBB licenses the clock designs for various products, including its own collection of watches that are available for sale.
Left: Apple's iOS 6 clock. Right: the clock design owned by SBB.
Officials with the railway service, known as SBB, told global news service AFP (via Cnet) that they will meet with Apple in the coming weeks to discuss the matter. No agreement has been made, but SBB spokeswoman Patricia Claivaz said the two sides would "talk about it."
Earlier, inaccurate reports had claimed that the SBB was demanding financial compensation for Apple over the clock design found in iOS 6. Claivaz dismissed those reports as "speculation."
Rather, the SBB is "proud" that Apple has chosen to use the iconic clock design in iOS 6, she said, noting that it was flattering to have a "brand as important as Apple" use their design.
"There are a lot of brands that use the SBB logo, though nothing like Apple," she added. "It's not just about exchanging money, rather drawing up a contract stating where the logo can be used, under what conditions and for how long."
The original clock design was created in 1944 by Swiss engineer Hans Hilfiker. It remains the property of SBB, and is still used in the Swiss operation's train stations.
SBB licenses the clock designs for various products, including its own collection of watches that are available for sale.
Comments
Tell SFR that they can use for free Apple's slightly more elegant reworking of the original design, and call it even.
Allow them to call it the William Tell version. ;-)
The only thing original about that Swiss clock seems to be the red ball on the seconds hand. Besides that, it looks like any average, common clock.
If the Swiss railways demands even a single penny, then Apple should just change the red ball on the Apple clock and make it into an arrow or something.
And the response from Samsung's attorneys:
They look nothing alike. Look - the hands are pointing in different directions.
Actually, that is the original ... looks pretty unimproveable to me
But they won't. Those arguments are only for use against Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And the response from Samsung's attorneys:
They look nothing alike. Look - the hands are pointing in different directions.
Actually there are a number of subtle differences, probably enough to not be infringing legally, although, I wonder why Apple even decided to make it so similar or if it was coincidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
Change the app. The phone version is fine.
funny you say that, because the phone version share a resemblance to the classic IBM clock. (minus the hatch marks of course, and I'm sure that's on purpose). Heck, Microsft is even a closer copy-cat (note I couldn't find an image but it does have the option of a Red Second-Hand).
Actually, they are meeting to strike a deal for SFR to provide their train schedule as a data source for iOS Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Actually there are a number of subtle differences, probably enough to not be infringing legally, although, I wonder why Apple even decided to make it so similar or if it was coincidental.
Give me a break. That is an clear and obvious copy job as I can imagine. As soon as I saw it on my iPad, I showed my wife and say "hey look they did the Swiss railway clock design." Maybe Samsung would try to argue that they didn't copy it if they had done it, but there is no way Apple will insist that they just stumbled onto the "obvious" design.
I think they made a beautiful copy, but if they want to continue using it, they should meet SBB's conditions. Or just switch to another design, no big deal.
I would not say it looks like IBM. Every element is different. No hash marks as you say. Hands don't have a tail. Hands are shaped different. Font is different (look at the 1). Just about every clock I saw as a kid had black hour/ minute hands and red second hand. Maybe they all copy each other, but you won't get infringement claims for every Elmer being different.
I just don't get it, out of a million diff clock designs, they HAVE to use this version? There are plenty of alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Give me a break. That is an clear and obvious copy job as I can imagine. As soon as I saw it on my iPad, I showed my wife and say "hey look they did the Swiss railway clock design." Maybe Samsung would try to argue that they didn't copy it if they had done it, but there is no way Apple will insist that they just stumbled onto the "obvious" design.
I think they made a beautiful copy, but if they want to continue using it, they should meet SBB's conditions. Or just switch to another design, no big deal.
How many differences are required to not be a copy in your mind?
Isn't it an analog clock face? The flashing 12:00 on my VCR is a digital clock face.
OK. Fixed!
It's a digital representation of an analog clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalax
Actually, that is the original ... looks pretty unimproveable to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
How many differences are required to not be a copy in your mind?
More than Apple made - especially when you see that photo of the clock in the analog world..... ....c'mon, there's defending Apple and then there's "Apple can do no wrong." I'm frequently involved in doing the first, but not always the second, because at some point you become a "spinner."
And I'll add that Warner Bros. could've made a beef over the similarity between the iTunes icon and some variations on the old Looney Tunes logo... ...as close as Samesong's "resemblances" in some cases.....
Look. Apple realises there are only so many ways to design a clock, and its just natural progression that it has gone to this style.
Maybe maybe not. Sometimes it is to both parties advantage to come to an agreement. Done right Apple could present some prior art to cause the railroad to use some caution before trying to demand too much.
Why is there any need for an agreement? The copyright on the Swiss design is long expired. It's in the public domain... anyone could copy the original design "as is" and face no legal threats.
Frankly, I wish Apple had made the effort to marginally improve the original design, which is actually not that easy to quickly read and discern what is the correct time.
I won't argue with that. Still, I think, far from what was written in the article.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Why is there any need for an agreement? The copyright on the Swiss design is long expired. It's in the public domain... anyone could copy the original design "as is" and face no legal threats.
Hilfiker died in 1993. The copyright is valid until 2063.
Frankly, I wish Apple had made the effort to marginally improve the original design, which is actually not that easy to quickly read and discern what is the correct time.
They did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Why is there any need for an agreement? The copyright on the Swiss design is long expired. It's in the public domain... anyone could copy the original design "as is" and face no legal threats.
Frankly, I wish Apple had made the effort to marginally improve the original design, which is actually not that easy to quickly read and discern what is the correct time.
It's a trademark, not a patent (which expire) or copyright (which...may expire). Trademarks can be held indefinitely.
This is a pretty clear case of a look similar enough that most people who know the Swiss design will think Apple copied it or meant to imitate it very closely. If Apple values its own "look and feel" patents and trademarks, which it clearly does, then I expect that it will now reciprocate when another firm justifiably feels that Apple has infringed.
It's not like it's going to cost a fortune if Apple keeps the design, and they can always change so as not to infringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Give me a break. That is an clear and obvious copy job as I can imagine. As soon as I saw it on my iPad, I showed my wife and say "hey look they did the Swiss railway clock design." Maybe Samsung would try to argue that they didn't copy it if they had done it, but there is no way Apple will insist that they just stumbled onto the "obvious" design.
I think they made a beautiful copy, but if they want to continue using it, they should meet SBB's conditions. Or just switch to another design, no big deal.
But Apple never copies anybody, remember? /s
Just like all musicians are inspired by music they have previously listened to, many companies are inspired by other companies designs. Still, this would definitely be considered a copy as far as I am concerned. Don't be a hypocrite Apple, either pay up or give them credit for the design!
Apple is clearly infringing on this trademark but as you note it won't cost a fortune. I'd like to also note that Apple's infringement has note affected the trademark holder in a negative way. They aren't able to sell less clocks because of Apple unauthorized usage. People are thinking it's an iPhone when they see it's a Swiss clock or vice versa. The Swiss aren't competing with Apple for the same sale of a product which could be awarded damages. It's simply an homage to a design they should pay for if they want to keep or change if the Swiss want too much for it.
http://csdigitalworks.deviantart.com/#/d5fvzve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
It's a trademark, not a patent (which expire) or copyright (which...may expire). Trademarks can be held indefinitely.
This is a pretty clear case of a look similar enough that most people who know the Swiss design will think Apple copied it or meant to imitate it very closely. If Apple values its own "look and feel" patents and trademarks, which it clearly does, then I expect that it will now reciprocate when another firm justifiably feels that Apple has infringed.
It's not like it's going to cost a fortune if Apple keeps the design, and they can always change so as not to infringe.
Here is the link to Swiss trademark length: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length
Life + 70 years effective 1 July 1993 non-retroactively, but Life + 50 years for computer programs[290]
Life + 50 years (before the law changed on 1 July 1993, applicable for deaths through 1942)][291]
Now, since the copyright holder is presumably the Swiss Railway, not the designer, that would affect the length of the term (assumedly).
If Apple infringed on a design that is still enforceable, the designer at Apple should be fired and they should immediately come to an agreement or change the design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csdigitalworks
Problem solved.....
http://csdigitalworks.deviantart.com/#/d5fvzve
Is that a Red Delicious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Apple is clearly infringing on this trademark but as you note it won't cost a fortune. I'd like to also note that Apple's infringement has note affected the trademark holder in a negative way. They aren't able to sell less clocks because of Apple unauthorized usage. People are thinking it's an iPhone when they see it's a Swiss clock or vice versa. The Swiss aren't competing with Apple for the same sale of a product which could be awarded damages. It's simply an homage to a design they should pay for if they want to keep or change if the Swiss want too much for it.
If their copyright is still valid, and it appears it might be, Apple has no excuse in this case. Dumb of them to do this. I'd fire the designer responsible and have them apologize to the Swiss Railway. A sloppy mistake on Apple's part (again, if everything appears as it seems).
As previously noted I would assume this falls under trademark, not a copyright, which can last indefinitely. Think of the Coke bottle.
Assuming Apple does have to pay for this, my problem is that they'd even up the door for something so petty beawe we both know the DaHarders, Teckstuds and Jfannings of the world have no ability to see the difference between this clock and what Samsung has done to Apple and the rest of the Android licensees.
Sammy's saying "damn, apple beat us to it. so we wasted time creating a 132 page comparison slide deck between the Swiss clock and ours."
It beats Sammy's "slavish" reworking of the original design I would say...
If you google images with "clock" as a keyword, you will see literally thousands of possible 2D & 3D's clock shapes, and Apple, as it always proudly says, will come up with the thousands-1st unique design. This is apparently that "unique" design. Apple might even go with the "square with rounded corners" inspired clock altogether..., but no.., Apple has to go this "slavishly" instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Tell SFR that they can use for free Apple's slightly more elegant reworking of the original design, and call it even.
Allow them to call it the William Tell version. ;-)
Wrong, the Swiss Railway owns the rights to the design.
Of course there's a big difference but a company that's suing others for copying their designs shouldn't be caught doing that very thing.
- the pivot of Apple second Hand is different
- the hour and second hand of Apple don't tapper like to Swiss
- the thickness ratio of the markers also don't match.
And the Apple design looks a lot better and polished.
You are confusing similar with exact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Apple is clearly infringing on this trademark but as you note it won't cost a fortune. I'd like to also note that Apple's infringement has note affected the trademark holder in a negative way. They aren't able to sell less clocks because of Apple unauthorized usage. People are thinking it's an iPhone when they see it's a Swiss clock or vice versa. The Swiss aren't competing with Apple for the same sale of a product which could be awarded damages. It's simply an homage to a design they should pay for if they want to keep or change if the Swiss want too much for it.
Apple is clearly infringing on this trademark if they were in business of selling clocks. But since they are in different businesses, Apple may not be infringing. The clock face may be considered generic enough when it comes to trademarks. Think the fight between Apple Computer and Apple Records. Though the two apple trademarks are some what similar, Apple Computer is not infringing on Apple Records trademark, so long as Apple Computer is not in the music business. But Apple Computer trademark, even with all it's differences, would clearly be infringing if they were selling records. Which was how the case was settled between them. With Apple Computer being able to keep their trademark, so long as they don't enter into the music business. (And we all know how that turned out.
Or change the app.
However, one would have to see the specific trademark to know if Apple has actually infringed. A trademark covers only a specific area of commerce. If you have something similar in a different area of commerce, it probably doesn't infringe. For example, "Microsoft Windows" obviously doesn't infringe those glass things in your wall - and they can not be used as prior art.
It's an interesting question as to whether a computer program can infringe a hardware clock on the wall. Furthermore, when it comes to damages, it will be hard for SFR to show any damages from Apple's use of the design - which means that the most likely court decision (even if it were found to infringe) would be for Apple to stop using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
It's a trademark, not a patent (which expire) or copyright (which...may expire). Trademarks can be held indefinitely.
To be perfectly clearly, a trademark can be held indefinitely only if the trademark is being used to represent a company or product. Trademarks expires in 7 years (plus an extension period.) if they are not being used. Cisco lost the "iPhone" trademark in this manner. They were not using the trademark or used it in a period of over 7 years. Cisco got the trademark when they bought out a company making internet phones in the mid 90's. But neither of them ever used the "iPhone" trademark for an actual product or as part of their company names. Apple got the "iPhone" trademark when Cisco let it expired. All this would have turned out differently if Cisco had a copyright on "iPhone".
Given that the copyright racket will buy extensions to the law before their copyrights expire, I think it's safe to say that copyrights will never expire either.
Personally, I don't think a government agency should own trademark and copyights in this manner, but that's a moot argument. Damages are tenuous in my opinion, suggesting that Apple using a clock design harms a passenger rail service ticket sales is a stretch.
Your argument isn't any better by saying that you're an Apple user since....
Because anyone can say that, it really means nothing, it's not worth saying or proving. Either you can defend the argument on its own or you can't.
The level of visual similarity is clearly there, but they aren't even competitors. I think Apple will probably pay up, but fandroids are making it a false equivalence.
It does look like any average common clock now. But when it first appeared it was unlike any other clock - it's an original design. Many other clocks look like it for the same reason many smartphones now look like the iPhone. That's why Apple snatching this particular design (Apple's always had an eye for classic modernist design) without asking SSB is highly ironic.
But the clock is included in a device that's sold and used to tell time. Like when Samsung was accused of copying icons, nobody's in the business of selling icons, are they?
I have to disagree. If the SBB owns the design, Apple should not only sign up, but also - within reason - pay to use the design.
First - Apple is not first with everything.
second - If Apple want to be able win the design and patent litigation war in the eyes of the public and grow their brand, they should acknowledge good design and if they choose to use it, highlight it instead of infringe. This also strengthens their ability to protect their own innovations were appropriate.
So I say: Apple - Smile, admit and highlight how good design foster good design. Pay if you happen to or want to use others good design. Then you show that you stand above the copy-industry. Also, this would strengthen Apples brand outside US.
Continue to stand apart Apple! Admit and acknowledge good design. Pay if necessary.
Agree. And Apple has a chance to turn this to a positive story. Admit, acknowledge and - if necessary - pay. Then brag about how good design foster good design. Indulge in all good designers around the world instead of turning to the tech crowd for lead.
Then do a good an true story how this came about. Post on Apples home page and gain goodwill.
Will slap copy industry hard the face as a side effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
But the clock is included in a device that's sold and used to tell time. Like when Samsung was accused of copying icons, nobody's in the business of selling icons, are they?
The difference being that Apple icons are copyrighted. They are not trademarks. Trademarks and copyrights are not treated the same. The name "Microsoft" is copyrighted. It's a made up word that belongs to Microsoft. You can not use the word "Microsoft" to sell autos, hamburgers, shoes or anything else for that matter, without infringing on Microsoft copyright. Apple on the other hand, only has a trademark on the name "Apple". The word Apple is generic and thus can not be copyrighted. Apple only owns the trademark when used in the business they are in or thinking of getting into in the future. But for now, mainly computer systems, music and mobile phone business. But anyone can use the word "apple" to sell autos, hamburgers, shoes, apples or anything else that can not be mistaken for something that Apple Inc. may be involved in. It's the same for their Apple logo trademark. Apple Inc. can not stop an apple orchard from using a generic apple as their trademark to sell apples. Even if there are some similarities between the trademarks. But they can stop a company whose business deals with computers from using an apple as their logo. Even if the apple logo is vastly different from that of Apple Inc. trademark logo. So long as it resembles an apple, Apple can stop it's usage as it can be confused with being connected to Apple Inc.
Besides, Samsung and Apple are in the same business. The selling of mobile phones. So even if Apple only has a trademark on their iPhone icons, Samsung can not use on their phones without infringing. Now Samsung may be able to get away with using an icon that is similar to an Apple iPhone icon on their refrigerators or washers and dryers. But only if the icons is a trademark, not a copyright.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Admitting you've done wrong and showing that you've corrected it usually attracts good will.
Damn you autocorrect? I think you meant attracts.
Oops. I am using my Mac, too. Autocorrect or not the problem ultimately still resides with me not proofreading my forum posts.
I have absolutely no doubt that Apple wanted an iconic design and instead of going to the owners (who would then ask for a load of money because it's Apple asking and they'd think their design is important to the finished product) they decided just to use the design anyway knowing that 1 of 3 things would happen.
1 - nothing
2 - the owners of the design would let them
3 - the owners would ask for some cash and if it was too much Apple would change the design and they would get no money at all.
Win/win/win situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Tell SFR that they can use for free Apple's slightly more elegant reworking of the original design, and call it even.
Allow them to call it the William Tell version. ;-)
LOL, I think it would be an honor for SFR that the design appeared on the most used tablet in Earth.