Except for the Red Ball nothing is similar. - 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.
Except for the Red Ball nothing is similar.
- 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.
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. ) Now if Apple Inc. offered this clock face when converting their new iPod Nano to wear as a wrist watch, then it's clearly infringing.
I've been an Apple fan since 1984 (Apple II) and I started with Macs in 1988 with a Mac II, but they are obviously infringing here. It's at least as close a copy as Samsung's products. Just dig out the checkbook, guys.
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.
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".
As previously noted I would assume this falls under trademark, not a copyright, which can last indefinitely. Think of the Coke bottle.
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.
I've been an Apple fan since 1984 (Apple II) and I started with Macs in 1988 with a Mac II, but they are obviously infringing here. It's at least as close a copy as Samsung's products. Just dig out the checkbook, guys.
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.
"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."
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.
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. ) Now if Apple Inc. offered this clock face when converting their new iPod Nano to wear as a wrist watch, then it's clearly infringing.
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?
[" url="/t/152844/swiss-federal-railways-to-meet-with-apple-over-ios-6-clock-design#post_2197338"]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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Admitting you've done wrong and showing that you've corrected it usually attracts good will.
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.
Comments
- 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.