NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha - Page 23

Originally Posted by AzN1337c0d3r 

You also seem to imply that the teardrop shape implies design where none exist. If you saw a teardrop in nature, would you say it was designed too?

 

Originally Posted by King of Pangaea 

Some would say that a teardrop is evidence of intelligent design.  Does that mean Beats phones were made by God?  Just adding fuel to the fire here.

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

 

Design is among the useful arts as it is part and parcel of a useful item, in this case a set of headphones. Design is an example of what's known as the applied arts.

 

 

Your myopic obsession with "teardrop shape" is little more than an obfuscation.

 

Monster didn't design a shape. They designed a headphone. And a rather distinctive looking one at that, unless you would care to show me another headphone that could easily be confused with the Beats (logos notwithstanding) and existed prior to the introduction of the Beats.

 

Dieter Rams designed the TP1 portable radio and record player for Braun back in the 1950's.

 

 

It too is very distinctive. But if you look at it simply as "shapes," it's just circles and rectangles.

 

Looking at design simply as shapes is like looking at music simply as notes or a book simply as words, which is utterly absurd.

 

The design of the Beats came together fundamentally no differently than a piece of music or literature. Various elements were brought together in a creative way to produce something new and distinctive. And to that end, I don't see that it's any less deserving of protection than a new piece of music or literature.

 

se

Originally Posted by SmOgER 

I can understand Yamaha very clearly. It's quite good marketing from all this fuss (just look at the ads, they are doing it on purpose), but what about Shure???

Originally Posted by SmOgER 

It's just kinda not cool and turns their brand off...  What is the purpose of such a HPs? There should be some chinese logo on them, NOT Shure. What's more, as stupidly as it sounds, but by doing that they are unintentionally showing that Beats are reference point for (/ above) Shure.

Originally Posted by SpiderNhan 

There are lots of aesthetic copy cats out there. It's really the sound and reputation of Yamaha that is making Beats Audio squirm. Check out these gems.

 

http://www.idanceaudio.com/product_list_blue300.php

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

Design is among the useful arts as it is part and parcel of a useful item, in this case a set of headphones. Design is an example of what's known as the applied arts.

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

unless you would care to show me another headphone that could easily be confused with the Beats (logos notwithstanding) and existed prior to the introduction of the Beats.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia 
An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

Dieter Rams designed the TP1 portable radio and record player for Braun back in the 1950's.




It too is very distinctive. But if you look at it simply as "shapes," it's just circles and rectangles.

Looking at design simply as shapes is like looking at music simply as notes or a book simply as words, which is utterly absurd.

The design of the Beats came together fundamentally no differently than a piece of music or literature. Various elements were brought together in a creative way to produce something new and distinctive. And to that end, I don't see that it's any less deserving of protection than a new piece of music or literature.

se