|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
| What? Please email me instantly!! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: retiarius on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
Context -- herewith is unpaid blogging "reportage"
refocused from a related topic.
I was in the San Jose courtroom of Judge Koh today in
no official capacity other than that of a curious onlooker.
Immediately I noticed today's star witness Dr. Susan Kare sporting a high-tech
looking watch matching her white outfit. At first subconsciously as a
"visual pun", I started musing about it in the context of the IP
issues of "trade dress".
After a break I found myself in the overflow courtroom
seeing her expert testimony on the video screen more enlarged. I was thinking
the watch just had to be an iPod nano watch -- it was brutishly square, with
minimal unornamented plastic band, and original Apple iPod white in color. I
Googled pics of it concluding its provenance. I first thought that would be a
perfect "product placement" for Apple, but then this didn't seem to
match the soft-spoken persona who nevertheless is getting paid $550 per hour by
Apple for her testimony.
Then at the lunch break at the elevator I asked her about the watch, nodding
about it being a square-face iPod nano.
But no! The design was from an offshoot of Fossil, looking more silverish up
close, and detailing her own icongraphy, natch. I felt a bit embarrassed about
my own "trade dress" confusion.
Just like what design patents inform, at a glance an archetype stays sticky in
the mind, but when sufficiently detailed may not exactly constitute
"substantial similarity of protectable expression".
I haven't seen this recounted elsewhere, so there's my Groklaw
"scoop".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
