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 20

post #286 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

The US Patent Office began issuing design patents just 53 years after the ratification of the Constitution (James Madison, father of the Constitution, had been dead only 6 years). The first design patent was for a typeface in 1842. Perhaps the most iconic is the design patent issued to Coca Cola for the design of their bottle in 1915.

 

So there's absolutely nothing new or unusual about Beats obtaining a design patent for their headphones.

 

se


I was not referring to objects per se. Rather it was an inference that the sheer quantity and volume of new goods today is an overwhelming haystack in which to identify the needle of a new design.

In other words, I believe that were you to try to patent a bottle shape today there would be considerable more work to be done than in 1915:) The concepts are certainly not new, however the context has changed rather dramatically.

post #287 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post


I was not referring to objects per se. Rather it was an inference that the sheer quantity and volume of new goods today is an overwhelming haystack in which to identify the needle of a new design.

In other words, I believe that were you to try to patent a bottle shape today there would be considerable more work to be done than in 1915:) The concepts are certainly not new, however the context has changed rather dramatically.

 

Oh sure, you have a Schiit load more prior art to research.

 

se

post #288 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

 

I do not know if the patent system is broken or simply not up to dealing with things that did not exist when it was conceived. The look of a product can be of great importance (B&W nautilus for example) so that needs to be recognized. But when is a product different enough, supposedly when there is no prior art, but that relies on the patent system and its researchers itself and may not go into other intellectual property domains. In other words it is not thorough enough and relies on challenges and suit's to remedy any errors. Where it really breaks down is when design and technical details become involved (in short the system never took into account the accelerated rate of development brought on by the computer and internet ages). There just does not seem to be enough expertise in the Patent Office system(s) to make sound (no pun int) judgements on these type of issues.

 

So to sum up you have

A) insufficient information for the PO to draw on

B) insufficient expertise in the PO to make a reasonable decision

C) a system which relies on litigation to mediate its own errors.

D) resulting in a sound retirement fund gold mine for patent lawyers. Doubly so if in fact they have Technological expertise.

 

The only real way around this would be to use the type of system academia has used worldwide for years WRT new research papers. It has to pass through the peer review system to determine its individual merit and uniqueness.

 

Can you just imagine the look's on the faces at Sennheiser when the Beats patent came in for review:)


My disagreements with patents are more fundamental than this. But I will focus on design patents, since that is what this thread is created about. To me, design patents (as defined by current US law) should not be allowed. 

 

The effect of a patent is to grant the patent holder a monopoly on the market. This monopoly is supposed to be used as an incentive to publicly disclose their research, making progress public.

What companies have done with design patents nowadays is to protect the recognition of their product by consumers. This is not conducive to the patent system's original intent to further human progress.

post #289 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

Oh sure, you have a Schiit load more prior art to research.

 

se


Now that is priceless:)

post #290 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post


Now that is priceless:)

 

Don't give me too much credit. Schiit puns are a dime a dozen around here. biggrin.gif

 

What's truly priceless is Jason naming the company Schiit. Since then, I've been patiently waiting for someone to name their headphone-related company Phuuk, so I can use my favorite word of all here without getting into trouble*. very_evil_smiley.gif

 

*I don't believe in "bad words."

 

se


Edited by Steve Eddy - 2/28/13 at 10:02pm
post #291 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzN1337c0d3r View Post


My disagreements with patents are more fundamental than this. But I will focus on design patents, since that is what this thread is created about. To me, design patents (as defined by current US law) should not be allowed. 

 

The effect of a patent is to grant the patent holder a monopoly on the market. This monopoly is supposed to be used as an incentive to publicly disclose their research, making progress public.

What companies have done with design patents nowadays is to protect the recognition of their product by consumers. This is not conducive to the patent system's original intent to further human progress.

 

True enough. Altruism in the marketplace is a pretty unknown entity. Who was it, Reagan who tried to implement Leader Follower policy in the defense market by having the developer give away the research to competitors. That simply resulted in the competition being able to create the same product without having to recover the heinous R&D costs.

 

 These days where it is a case of 100 percent better 50 percent cheaper in 18 months should allow the 14 year (on design patents)patent holder to more than profit by their invention. That goes out the window when a knock off product comes out almost immediately and erodes the marker share. I can more than understand where using any means of lawful interference comes into play there. IF and a big if it is, said design is trully original and a radical departure from  the established products in the marketplace.

 

 Now to get to items under scrutiny here does the Beats design differ enough from pre existing designs to stand out on its own. God knows there have been more headphone designs over the years than any person could evaluate in a lifetime so the chances are good somebody went there before. Finding that little nugget may prove to be quite a challenge and the 75 grand might be a better option for a corporation like Yamaho to pay out.

 

To your overall point I do not think any sane person believes for a minute that Beats brought any "breakthrough" design or technical to the market. This is about market share protection and little else. Brings to mind the legal action between the films Fail Safe and Dr Strangelove where a bogus plagarism suit was invoked in order to delay Fail Safes release as the plot was too similar to Strangelove.

 

The thing about this deal is the money is a trivial amount so something else is at stake. If this goes against the Tuning Forks, will beats then go after everyone else with a teardrop headphone design?

post #292 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzN1337c0d3r View Post


My disagreements with patents are more fundamental than this. But I will focus on design patents, since that is what this thread is created about. To me, design patents (as defined by current US law) should not be allowed. 

 

The effect of a patent is to grant the patent holder a monopoly on the market. This monopoly is supposed to be used as an incentive to publicly disclose their research, making progress public.
 

 

So how do you feel about copyrights and trademarks?

 

Quote:
What companies have done with design patents nowadays is to protect the recognition of their product by consumers. This is not conducive to the patent system's original intent to further human progress.

 

What do you mean by "nowdays"? What do you think the purpose of the 1915 design patent on the Coca Cola bottle was?

 

se

post #293 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPaintCode View Post

 

 

 

 

 

This samsung took my attention some time ago, but side by side with macbook this is even more hillarious!! biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif 

I wonder why Apple didn't sue them, this rip-off is way more obious than touchwiz and SGS1. Heck, it's even more obious than yamaha's dr who headphones biggrin.gif...


Edited by SmOgER - 3/1/13 at 3:07am
post #294 of 489

Probably becouse apple had no patent for that

post #295 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

 

Your screen name suggests otherwise. As for nonsense you are shoveling buckets of drivel the like of which I have not seen in years. Apple did nothing but marry an mp3 player with a phone ,period. Their market share came from iTunes, period and that was marketing genius. You are driven no matter what you do to the iTunes store and that is as good a market capture as has ever been seen  As for a smart phone with touch screen, well Palm was there first now weren't they.  Yet you have the nerve to call me uninformed.

 

   You are the one who brought Jobs into this discussion, not me, but feel free to backpedal all you want.

 

Very easy for you to talk about hatred isn't it. You are being taken to task over your lack of knowledge and that's the best rebuttal you can come up with? Your complete inability to comprehend Apple's business model and the product line resulting from that is mind boggling.

 

Troll on somewhere else, I am done polluting this thread with responses to your lack of industry knowledge.

 

And your attitude clearly indicates that you know nothing about the market and are just a typical PC fanboy. My username could be "Dragon-Ball-Demon," but that doesn't make me a demon. Am I lying that I don't have any Apple products, and that overall, I believe that the competition is actually better? Want pictures for proof? LOL.  


If you want to credit Palm for touchscreen devices, you might want to look up something called the Apple Newton. Does Apple get credit for Palm's devices now? Not in your world, you'll just spin this into something else. Capacitive multitouch? How is your smartphone today if it used a stylus and had single touch functionality? 

 

As for iTunes, you really think that people buy 100s of millions of i-devices for ITUNES?! I hate to break it to you, but there are millions of people who buy iPhones and iPads and avoid using iTunes at all costs. Since the 21st century, Apple's profits have always primarily been derived from its hardware sales.  


This is my final response on this subject because there is no point in trying to educate an ignoramus who calls someone else the troll when he's the one who began flinging mud at Apple. When you make laughably ignorant and raving statements, don't be too surprised to be called out for them. Take it to Youtube or limit your emotional rants to one-liners - like "Apple is the devil, sucks!" - that warrant no response. 

post #296 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by catspaw View Post

Probably becouse apple had no patent for that

And they'd have to sue everyone because every manufacturer now has an ultrabook that looks similar. 

 

I remember when people were telling us all how their netbooks cost only $250, and that the Air was an overpriced piece of junk. Now every company is on the ultrabook bandwagon. You can't and shouldn't be able to patent a basic design. Can you imagine if some of our most important technologies were patented? Only one manufacturer is allowed to make TVs? 

post #297 of 489

O.K guys I have posted a few irrelevant post it's not my fault when it come to beats it freaks me out 

 

just wanted to remind you today is Justin Berber's birthday don't you see the intimacy biggrin.gif

 

 

 

http://forum.trshady.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=112238

 

OMG!!!:  http://www.bohomoth.com/?p=29445

 

 

for more pictures check out:  http://bit.ly/WtWMX7

------------------------

 

seriously I blame pure & Nobel Brands like Grado , Klipsch , Kose ,Sennheiser , AKG , &... for not providing low-end but nice designed IEMs & cans so the youths won't be so enthusiastic for these colorful junks like Beats,Monster,skullcandy,SMS Audio,....


Edited by peaceful1 - 3/3/13 at 5:17pm
post #298 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by peaceful1 View Post

O.K guys I have posted a few on relative post it's not my fault when it come to beats it freaks me out 

 

just wanted to remind you today is Justin Berber's birthday don't you see the intimacy biggrin.gif

 

for more pictures check out:  http://bit.ly/WtWMX7

------------------------

 

seriously I blame pure & Nobel Brands like Grado , Klipsch , Kose ,Sennheiser , AKG , &... for not providing low-end but nice designed IEMs & cans so the youths won't be so enthusiastic for these colorful junks like Beats,Monster,skullcandy,SMS Audio,....

i'm pretty sure sennheiser has a few...
cant say anything about grado though lol

post #299 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

So how do you feel about copyrights and trademarks?

 

I'm all for open-access of all information, so I frown upon most copyrights. Copyrights on things of entertainment value, however, are probably a necessary evil.

Trademarks are basically a patent on words. It's the same deal with design patents.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

What do you mean by "nowdays"? What do you think the purpose of the 1915 design patent on the Coca Cola bottle was?


I meant the now rife abuse of the design patent.

The purpose of the Coke bottle is brand recognition protection. I don't see that protection by the law as something that is necessary, or even beneficial to society.

post #300 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzN1337c0d3r View Post

 

I meant the now rife abuse of the design patent.
 

 

What rife abuse? I don't see design patents today being any different from design patents over a century ago.

 

Quote:
The purpose of the Coke bottle is brand recognition protection.

 

Yes. Which is no different than Beats' design patents.

 

Quote:
I don't see that protection by the law as something that is necessary, or even beneficial to society.

 

Ah well.

 

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