Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha - Page 17

post #241 of 487

It's apple versus samsung all over again. But honestly i can't blame beats for this one, the headphones do look similar

post #242 of 487

Despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of Yamaha's SQ, I am hesitant to purchase the PRO 500.  It is not because of this lawsuit.  It is because Yamaha chose to copy a poor design that is uncomfortable, heavy and has the appearance of a cheaply made plastic product, not a $400 audiophile headphone. 
 

post #243 of 487

They do look very similiar indeed, but when look at them side by side, Yamaha could have done just enough not to lose the case or get away with minimal consequences... :biggrin.gif

 


Edited by SmOgER - 2/26/13 at 4:58am
post #244 of 487

It's all going to come down to the patent itself and what it contains. Is the Yamaha different enough from beats patent? Then again if Yamaha knows anything of prior art and can show beats really did not invent anything new here all bets are off.
 

post #245 of 487
Ok, this is hypocrisy at its best. Look at the Beats logo and Anton Stankowski's logo from 1971.



Then, BigFix and Priority Parking:



And finally, British Paints and Pagan Osbourne.



See, the "b" used in the Beats logo is a rip off, and it's a multiple rip off.
Edited by JuanseAmador - 2/26/13 at 10:15am
post #246 of 487

I think it's not just about copying a logo, you have to prove how that stolen logo is being used in the same market as the logo from the original company and is taking away customers from them. I read somewhere that it comes down to proving wether the copied logo was able to lead customers into buying from one company thinking it's another one. Since no one will buy a can of paint thinking it's a pair of Beats headphones (then again I don't expect much from Beats customers, maybe Dre can convince them paint has swag). Can anyone confirm this?

post #247 of 487

Monster Beats has no integrity, but like Lizard says, those trademarked symbols are from completely different industries and aren't competitors. Is there a trademark lawyer in the house? Surely, a few of those owners would have sued by now if they could (they should too). 

post #248 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by earfonia View Post

This happen when people cares more of the appearance than the sound :(

I guess when they sound the same, using same driver, but difference appearance, no one will care to file a lawsuit... ;)

 

It's all about profits. Beats is supposedly selling really well (I haven't seen the figures), so even some of the big boys like Yamaha want in. 

 

Denon did enough with its new design to differentiate itself from Beats yet still manages to capture some of the similarities. Unfortunately, Denon also chose to mimic the Beats sound signature and has ruined what was a great line of fun but still hi-fi cans. 

post #249 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

Monster Beats has no integrity, but like Lizard says, those trademarked symbols are from completely different industries and aren't competitors. Is there a trademark lawyer in the house? Surely, a few of those owners would have sued by now if they could (they should too). 

While I am not a fan of their headphones, this is a very strong statement.  What is your premise for stating this?

post #250 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigster75 View Post

While I am not a fan of their headphones, this is a very strong statement.  What is your premise for stating this?

 

While I don't hate Monster, things like this make me seriously doubt their integrity. It's a story that's been around for some time, that one has pictures.

post #251 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigster75 View Post

While I am not a fan of their headphones, this is a very strong statement.  What is your premise for stating this?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

 

While I don't hate Monster, things like this make me seriously doubt their integrity. It's a story that's been around for some time, that one has pictures.


Fair enough regarding Monster.  Please keep in mind Beats is now a completely separate company with no affiliation to Monster currently.

post #252 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

I think it's not just about copying a logo, you have to prove how that stolen logo is being used in the same market as the logo from the original company and is taking away customers from them. I read somewhere that it comes down to proving wether the copied logo was able to lead customers into buying from one company thinking it's another one. Since no one will buy a can of paint thinking it's a pair of Beats headphones (then again I don't expect much from Beats customers, maybe Dre can convince them paint has swag). Can anyone confirm this?

 

You might want to have a look at the ruling over the use of the word (sic) Ipad , and how it confounded apple. Copyright is different from patent and copyright infringement transcends industry. Again prior art and intellectual property assertions rule here. See WWF vs WWF (world wildlife fund) there could be no two industries on earth more disparate and "who got there first" one out. The only thing Beats has that is unique is the Name and I do not see Yamaha by Dre anywhere.

 

The patent issue intrigues me, as other than a flat cable (which Yamaha was foolish enough to use) I cannot see any technical innovation whatsoever in any of the Beats products. Once again I'd love to see what exactly the patent states. If Yamaha has any prior art proof whatsoever the Beats patent could be challenged leaving them to rely on copyright, which as shown elsewhere here is on shaky ground itself.  This looks like specious litigation at its best. Anyone know if Dre has some new bassbloated product coming out soon?

post #253 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

 

The patent issue intrigues me, as other than a flat cable (which Yamaha was foolish enough to use) I cannot see any technical innovation whatsoever in any of the Beats products.

 

That's because Beats' patents are what are called design patents, which simply cover the "looks" of something, not utility patents which are for functional innovations.

 

se

post #254 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

That's because Beats' patents are what are called design patents, which simply cover the "looks" of something, not utility patents which are for functional innovations.

 

se

 

I get that, but still there must really be some feats of literary description there to cover off what is essentially nothing new. If they are relying on that teardrop shape to save them, I suspect they are in for a pretty rude awakening.

post #255 of 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

 

I get that, but still there must really be some feats of literary description there to cover off what is essentially nothing new. If they are relying on that teardrop shape to save them, I suspect they are in for a pretty rude awakening.

 

I posted a list of all of Beats' design patents in this post, so you can pull them up and take a look at them for yourself:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/651161/news-beats-in-a-lawsuit-with-yamaha/195#post_9187718

 

I don't think there are going to be any rude awakenings. I think there are just some lawyers who are going to make some money on both sides. This may not even get to court.

 

se

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Head-Fi Network & Industry News
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha