| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
Fist motherfucker ,- - Well, My mind explo-
- Dear Lord
- Age
- Why women cant driv-
- Bright side Ben
- The quietest room i-
- I wonder if it tast-
- WE DON'T HAVE BATTL-
- I know I Did
- In a parallel unive-
- tilas tacos
- Typographic Transgr-
- Ramsey... My Man
- Youtube's at it aga-
- Multiverse...Pretty-
- Preparing for ww3
- Best Fusion Yet
- Game of Foams
- Stephen King
#46
-
Fgner (08/29/2012) [-] Let's go through this logical fallicy carefully.
General patents on shapes or looks cannot be placed, therefore the ownership of a shape or (in their terms) "likeness" is an unreasonable claim, since the apple logo (which is the only patentable thing for their design) was not used, and they cannot own the "likeness" of a camfered rectangle.
Next, internal components of the two devices are astronomically different. The electrical hardware is in no way shape or form even conceivably the same to anyone who opens them, let alone a professional hardware designed, which I would ASSUME they would use to determine the likeness of the two designs. No copyright infringement visible.
And finally, if you just turned the two devices on, you would immediately see that they are completely separate devices. Fucking retards, did they even turn them on?
General patents on shapes or looks cannot be placed, therefore the ownership of a shape or (in their terms) "likeness" is an unreasonable claim, since the apple logo (which is the only patentable thing for their design) was not used, and they cannot own the "likeness" of a camfered rectangle.
Next, internal components of the two devices are astronomically different. The electrical hardware is in no way shape or form even conceivably the same to anyone who opens them, let alone a professional hardware designed, which I would ASSUME they would use to determine the likeness of the two designs. No copyright infringement visible.
And finally, if you just turned the two devices on, you would immediately see that they are completely separate devices. Fucking retards, did they even turn them on?
#90 to #82
-
Fgner (08/29/2012) [-] Nope. The bricks can be copied all people want. The European court refused to patent the lego's shapes. HOWEVER, the methods of interconnectivity were allowed to be patented "Because the studs on LEGO blocks serve the function of allowing interconnectivity with other LEGO blocks."
Source: www.thelegality.com/2008/12/04/lego-blocks-get-eu-court-copyright-block/
Source: www.thelegality.com/2008/12/04/lego-blocks-get-eu-court-copyright-block/
#79 to #46
-
MrOblivious (08/29/2012) [-]
Actually you can copyright a shape.
To a certain extent I think. Not too sure how it works but shapes can be copyrighted.
You know Coke bottles? The shape is copyrighted, no other company can produce a beverage in a bottle of the same shape.
Granted Coke bottles have a unique shape where as the iPhone doesn't. It's just a rectangle.
To a certain extent I think. Not too sure how it works but shapes can be copyrighted.
You know Coke bottles? The shape is copyrighted, no other company can produce a beverage in a bottle of the same shape.
Granted Coke bottles have a unique shape where as the iPhone doesn't. It's just a rectangle.
#91 to #79
-
Fgner (08/29/2012) [-] A design patent does not apply for general shapes, merely for ornamentary features and non-functional objects. You cannot place a copyright on a calculator shape, unless you add ornamentary factors to it. Otherwise, every single calculator would have to be bedazzled or some shit to avoid infringement. It's just common sense. If a design was created explicitly for aesthetic and non-functional purposes, then it is granted design patent. However, the iPad was not given an explicitly aesthetic design, it was given a minimal rectangular case to enclosed hardware, which was used by numerous tablets before it. Therefore, if it claims copyright infringement, it itself is in violation of numerous "design patents."
P.S. They never applied for an explicit design patent, so even if that was a valid patent, they don't own it.
P.S. They never applied for an explicit design patent, so even if that was a valid patent, they don't own it.
