1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha

Discussion in 'Head-Fi Network & Industry News' started by joe, Feb 14, 2013.
First
 
Back
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Next
 
Last
  1. raihananandya
    It's apple versus samsung all over again. But honestly i can't blame beats for this one, the headphones do look similar
     
  2. Craigster75
    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. 
     
     
  3. SmOgER
    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... :[​IMG]
     
    130211_Headphone20News_Photo_CompareBeatsYamaha.jpg
     
    peaceful1 likes this.
  4. Hutnicks
    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.
     
     
  5. JuanseAmador
    Ok, this is hypocrisy at its best. Look at the Beats logo and Anton Stankowski's logo from 1971.

    dr-dre-stadt-bruhl-logos.jpg

    Then, BigFix and Priority Parking:

    bigfix-logo.jpg

    And finally, British Paints and Pagan Osbourne.

    british-paints-pagan-logos.jpg

    See, the "b" used in the Beats logo is a rip off, and it's a multiple rip off.
     
  6. LizardKing1
    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?
     
  7. applebook
    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). 
     
  8. applebook
    Quote:
     
    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. 
     
  9. Craigster75
    Quote:
    While I am not a fan of their headphones, this is a very strong statement.  What is your premise for stating this?
     
  10. LizardKing1
    Quote:
     
    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.
     
  11. Craigster75
    Quote:
     
    Quote:

    Fair enough regarding Monster.  Please keep in mind Beats is now a completely separate company with no affiliation to Monster currently.
     
  12. Hutnicks
    Quote:
     
    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?
     
  13. Steve Eddy
    Quote:
     
    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
     
    zorin likes this.
  14. Hutnicks
    Quote:
     
    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.
     
  15. Steve Eddy
    Quote:
     
    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
     
First
 
Back
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Next
 
Last

Share This Page