Is it not an explicit reference to this design? I didn't know the specific source, but it's so iconic I automatically assumed it was a copy of something.
1) As was said above, no one will mistakenly buy an iPad instead of one of these railway clocks -- typically the grounds around which these IP infringement cases revolve -- and I'm not even sure if you can even buy this clock anyway.
2) Apple isn't illegally distributing these preventing their creator from a source of revenue they previously had.
This is quite obviously a digital homage to an iconic physical product much like the Braun calculators.
I'm not saying this is a good approach for Apple, or that they're safe from more general copyright infringement, but you've twisted the logic here so badly it misrepresents the issue.
There it is claimed that the SBB (Swiss Federal Railway company) holds the copyright and trademark on the clock.
A representative claims that the use is indeed unauthorized, and that they are contacting Apple, trying to seek a legal and financial solution.
I think the argument is that if Apple made a calculator that looked like the Braun one it would be stealing. But since it's not the same type of device, it's a tribute. I'm not sure if this is a valid legal argument, but I understand it.
Let's not confuse arguments that benefit Apple with blind support of Apple. Intentionally making a phone that copies the iPhone is clearly wrong, IMO. This clock issue is quite a bit murkier.
Well, a tribute isn't a legal thing (and trademark and patent infringement is not stealing). But yes, it'd be hard to see a design patent on the clock effecting a representation of the clock drawn on a screen (and any patent would in any case have long since expired) and trade dress and other consumer confusion stuff certainly wouldn't apply, as no-one is confused by the iPad into thinking it's a wall clock from the 40s.
I have this exact design on my wrist; just get a Mondaine Big Date watch. Extremely readable and elegant design. I get comments on it all the time. And it's quite affordable!
This is an homage - Apple makes it absolutely clear as to whether they adopted Hilfiker's clock for the iPad, whether they adopted the 1977 Braun calculator for the iPhone, or Dieter Brahm's Tape recorder for the Podcast app. They are paying tribute to those iconic designs.
I guess the question is - whether someone who was going to purchase Hilfiker's clock for their wall, will mistakenly purchase an iPad instead...
Seriously though - I have to believe in this IP excited environment that we're in, that the lawyer must have signed off (in triplicate) before they released this clock on the iPad.
20 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 48.8 ms ] thread- Albert Einstein
You mean, as in "I will now pay homage to HBO by torrenting the second season of Carnivale"?
1) As was said above, no one will mistakenly buy an iPad instead of one of these railway clocks -- typically the grounds around which these IP infringement cases revolve -- and I'm not even sure if you can even buy this clock anyway.
2) Apple isn't illegally distributing these preventing their creator from a source of revenue they previously had.
This is quite obviously a digital homage to an iconic physical product much like the Braun calculators.
I'm not saying this is a good approach for Apple, or that they're safe from more general copyright infringement, but you've twisted the logic here so badly it misrepresents the issue.
There it is claimed that the SBB (Swiss Federal Railway company) holds the copyright and trademark on the clock. A representative claims that the use is indeed unauthorized, and that they are contacting Apple, trying to seek a legal and financial solution.
Let's not confuse arguments that benefit Apple with blind support of Apple. Intentionally making a phone that copies the iPhone is clearly wrong, IMO. This clock issue is quite a bit murkier.
Well, a tribute isn't a legal thing (and trademark and patent infringement is not stealing). But yes, it'd be hard to see a design patent on the clock effecting a representation of the clock drawn on a screen (and any patent would in any case have long since expired) and trade dress and other consumer confusion stuff certainly wouldn't apply, as no-one is confused by the iPad into thinking it's a wall clock from the 40s.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Apple_takes_a_bite_of_S...
Swiss Railway clock images here: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=swiss+railway+clock&tbm...
http://www.amazon.com/Mondaine-White-Black-Leather-A627-3030...
I guess the question is - whether someone who was going to purchase Hilfiker's clock for their wall, will mistakenly purchase an iPad instead...
Seriously though - I have to believe in this IP excited environment that we're in, that the lawyer must have signed off (in triplicate) before they released this clock on the iPad.
Just spent 10 minutes reviewing everything he invented for Apple. :-)
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secr...