|
|
|
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
Apple has a design patent on that and will be suing the Swiss Railroad for
infringing on their patent for the past 68 years. Expect a jury in California
led by a retired clockmaker who has a patent for swinging on a swing sideways to
award Apple with a judgement in excess of a trillion dollars for infringing on
the design and also for infringing on building cities in the mountains. Any
prior art will obviously be ruled invalid as the Swiss clocks clearly cannot run
on IOS.
---
Political correctness is an effort to abrogate the First
Amendment under the assumption that there exists a right to
not be offended and that it has priority[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
It's probably safest to both check the trademark registration and consult a
trademark practitioner before drawing any hasty conclusions.
Swiss trademark registration for the clock by the Swiss Federal Railway Service
(Schweizerische Bundesbahnen SBB):
https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/en/tm/512830
https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/faces/jsp/trademark/sr300.jsp?language=en&s
ection=tm&id=512830
It's registered in international trademark Class 14, Apple appears to be using
it in Class 9. Class 14 is jewelry and includes chronometric instruments (Uhren
und deren Bestandteile, watches and parts thereof). Class 9 is electrical
equipment and includes computers and data processing equipment.
International trademark classes:
http://www.oppedahl.com/trademarks/tmclasses.htm
Mind you, you could wonder about an iPod nano on a wristband...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, September 21 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Anyone that has paid attention to Apple at all knows that this is not copying or
ripping off; it's Apple's characteristic mode of <i>retroactive
innovation</i>. Seriously, this how Apple defines 'innovation.' They
sued Samsung over what they saw in the Diamond Touch prior art, just as they
will probably sue over the clock. Furthermore, just look at the iPhone5.
Telling the iPhone from the Galaxy was a no-brainer, until they really did make
the iPhone look like a Galaxy. It's not copying, though... oh, no, no, no! By
implementing something that they saw somewhere else into one of their products,
they have </i>retroactively innovated<i>. Now, they can claim that
Samsung has 'slavisly copied' (a phrase the fanboies seem to love) by using the
shape of the iPhone5... although Samsung may have actually used those aspect
ratios sooner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/faces/jsp/trademark/sr300.jsp?language=en&s
ection=tm&id=512830
states
filing date 03.09.2002 (aka Sept 3, 2002)
expiry date 03.09.2012
today is 22.09.2012
Any knowledge about renewal?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
