NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha - Page 21

I'm curious to get Mr Eddy's opinion on the part of this suit which is specifically targeted at the point that Beats have become signature jewellery among the rap scene to the point that being worn around the neck is a fashion statement They seem to be making a large point of that fact with a view (it seems to me) to use that as a method of determining the uniqueness of the product. Is there precedent for this in this type of action?

On the plus side maybe the damn things will get classified as jewllery and be out of the audio sphere:)

I can hardly wait for the Catherine Zeta Jones Platinum Plated Stax fashion statement to come out.
 

SIGH. And here the hope was that Yamaha sued Beats...

Both designs are ugly though. Somehow the shape reminds of fecal matter. If anything it's a big plus for Yamaha the "beatish" design gets replaced with something nicer. Seriously, something that obnoxiously ponderous with an ugly "push-at-you-while-ignoring-you" low-class commoner attitude ought to be trashed.

About Samsung notebooks... Been there, tried that, the Samsung ripoff is obnoxious especially as instead of using normal-feel plastic coat and a decent action keyboard it's been replaced with nasty Apple-style hollow keyboard action and metal... It's what's always irritated me about Apple's notebooks (other than the single-button touchpad), the awful-feel keyboard and metal casing. Metal just doesn't feel organic. Plastic or even better, rubberised plastic is OKish when warmed up and felt, but metal? Meh. Someone has to release a notebook in a wooden case (and treat the wood somehow it doesn't get cracked). And with nice-feel deep-travel keys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hutnicks 

I'm curious to get Mr Eddy's opinion on the part of this suit which is specifically targeted at the point that Beats have become signature jewellery among the rap scene to the point that being worn around the neck is a fashion statement They seem to be making a large point of that fact with a view (it seems to me) to use that as a method of determining the uniqueness of the product. Is there precedent for this in this type of action?

 

Haven't read the filing but it certainly sounds like something a lawyer would put forward to bolster the argument as to the distinctiveness of the design and how it relates to brand identity.

Hehehe.

Keep the headphones. I'll settle for Catherine Zeta Jones.

se

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

 

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

The number of design patent lawsuits back then pales in comparison to the number we have now, hence rife.

Furthermore, I feel it is abuse because companies are using the system in a way that it was not intended as I've expounded in an earlier post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzN1337c0d3r 

The number of design patent lawsuits back then pales in comparison to the number we have now, hence rife.
 

The number of products back then pales in comparison to the number of products we have now. Your point?

What do you mean that companies are using the system in a way that was not intended? It was the system itself which extended patent protection to non-utility designs. This occurred in the Act of 1842 (with design patent D1 being issued later that same year):

And be it further enacted, That any citizen or citizens, or alien or aliens, having resided one year in the United States and taken the oath of his or their intention to become a citizen or citizens who by his, her, or their own industry, genius, efforts, and expense, may have invented or produced any new and original design for a manufacture, whether of metal or other material or materials, or any new and original design for the printing of woolen, silk, cotton, or other fabrics, or any new and original design for a bust, statue, or bas relief or composition in alto or basso relievo, or any new and original impression or ornament, or to be placed on any article of manufacture, the same being formed in marble or other material, or any new and useful pattern, or print, or picture, to be either worked into or worked on, or printed or painted or cast or otherwise fixed on, any article of manufacture, or any new and original shape or configuration of any article of manufacture not known or used by others before his, her, or their invention or production thereof, and prior to the time of his, her, or their application for a patent therefor [sic], and who shall desire or obtain an exclusive property or right therein to make, use, and sell and vend the same, or copies of the same, to others, by them to be made, used, and sold, may make application in writing to the Commissioner of Patents expressing such desire, and the Commissioner, on due proceedings had, may grant a patent therefor, as in the case now of application for a patent: Provided, That the fee in such cases which by the now existing laws would be required of the particular applicant shall be one half the sum, and that the duration of said patent shall be seven years, and that all the regulations and provisions which now apply to the obtaining or protection of patents not inconsistent with the provisions of this act shall apply to applications under this section.

Companies today are using the system exactly as was intended by the system itself. So if you want to blame anyone, blame the 27th Congress and President John Tyler.

se

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

 

The number of products back then pales in comparison to the number of products we have now. Your point?

 

se

That is exactly my point. Companies are just patenting every shape of every product they have and for what, so they can protect their products and restrict consumer choices?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 
What do you mean that companies are using the system in a way that was not intended? It was the system itself which extended patent protection to non-utility designs. This occurred in the Act of 1842 (with design patent D1 being issued later that same year):

 

...

 

Companies today are using the system exactly as was intended by the system itself.

The long spiel you quoted has nothing to do with the intent of the system. Since you obviously cannot be bothered to go read my earlier post addressing this, I will quote it for you here:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

So if you want to blame anyone, blame the 27th Congress and President John Tyler.

Grow up, no one is blaming anyone. All I'm saying is that the patent system is broken and needs reform.

not too much different to Beatsaudio/Monster in cohoots with the Fanny Wang lawsuit.

and it does seem NOT like a fresh idea anymore to have the design of some plastic pair of Beats headphones.

i really dont know who to side in this, i dislike the actions of Beatsaudio but i also dont like how Yamaha has to implement the design.

although i see the Beatsaudio company to be pretty nitpicky with its design policy. and it just seems unfair at times but im sure there are more innovative headphone designs out there...

*ding*ding*ding* give the lady a prize. I'm pretty sure this is all just a calculated publicity move. And Beats suing for the marginal $50k (I think that was quoted somewhere earlier) is really nothing and is just a token move because it'll look like rolling over if they don't do *something*. I'll bet the lawyer fees on either side is higher than the suit amount.

Yeah I am sure they were stuck between a rock and hard place there. If they don't sue, they look like they have their tails between their legs but if they do, it gives Yamaha way more exposure. I think they would have benefited if they had chosen not to sue. Most people who have beats will more likely than not, continue buying them since that 'b' is pretty much indelibly branded in their brains. Now that beats is suing Yamaha, they're actually acknowledging them as a threat and more importantly, as an equal - something they haven't done with any other headphone brand I can think of. I think Yamaha just pulled a fast one. It'll be interesting if they do win or what terms they might settle on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

So if you want to blame anyone, blame the 27th Congress and President John Tyler.

 

se

FINALLY!!!! Somebody actually says what we're all thinking: 

Quote:

Originally Posted by roma101 

I just want to state, for the record, that the Yamaha PRO 500 sounds worlds-apart, exponentially better than any beats plastic toy and is actually worth the price. I, for one, am not a fan of the beats-esque consumer look as I find it downright tacky (I find the HD25s, Grados, and anything by V-MODA way more fashionable and pleasing to the eye). That said, when you see the PRO series in person IMO they feel more substantial and look quite elegant with the Yamaha logo vs. your average beats-esque consumer can.

My theory is that Yamaha did all this on purpose. I find it hard to believe that they didn't do their homework in regards to beats patents - what they could essentially do with the final design and what they couldn't. They're also blatantly taunting beats in their ad. For this reason and apparent planning, I think they baited Beats intentionally ( for more exposure and publicity) and may end up winning. This headphone shouts, "This is what your beats should have been like in the first place - with actual SQ and BQ worth the price." And essentially, this is why beats is suing them. I'm sure they heard the Yamahas and inked themselves. Or at least I'd like to believe that :-D

In the end I could care less for looks. The only sad thing here is that I'd imagine that many HFiers might lump the Yamahas right in with beats and not give them a chance because of the looks. The PRO 500 is the BEST closed headphone I have heard yet and should not be overlooked just because of its aesthetics. The headphone is more like a Yamaha instrument in my book. Go audition them if you can.

Tell that to the recording-industry pros that have already standardized on the AKG® Q701 (covered in more detail in the Summit-Fi forum).  And Yamaha® had best watch out for a solicitor from London - the British Broadcasting Corporation will probably not take too kindly to the "Dr....who?" ads either, as they hold copyright on "Doctor Who" from 1967 to the present day.  Hold off Dr. Dre only to be pwned by the BBC?  Could happen all to easily; as one of the BBC's scriptwriters for the series cited would put it:

I'm still waiting for Yamaha to pull out David Tennant or Matt Smith as celebrity endorsers, just to legitimize those ads and give a figurative finger to the Beats lawyers. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armaegis 

I'm still waiting for Yamaha to pull out David Tennant or Matt Smith as celebrity endorsers, just to legitimize those ads and give a figurative finger to the Beats lawyers. 

Come on now, theres only one Dr and thats Tom Baker:)