On 30/08/2012 2:24 AM, DagT wrote:
Den 30. aug. 2012 kl. 09:35 skrev Joseph McAllister <pentax...@mac.com>:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 19:47 , William Robb wrote:
On 27/08/2012 6:55 PM, Tom C wrote:
What I'm against is a world where we only have Fords, Apple iPads,
Apple smart phones, Samsung TV's, Frigidaire refrigerators,,, you get
my drift, to choose from, and from what I can see that's the kind of
world Apple would like it to be.
Precedent law would say that the first company to patent the 3 box car design
will have the market in sedans and coupes to themselves, and if the are smart
they could patent the pick up truck shape and be the only car maker allowed to
sell vehicles in the USA.
That's how stupid allowing Apple to patent the rectangle with rounded corner
shape is.
It's not 'stupid' if the shape of the corners has a specific reason inherent to
the functioning of the screen or the safety of the
If he was right it would be stupid, but Bill has obviuosly neither seen the
patents nor the court decision but base his statement on popular belief. Which
is not a good base for his arguments.
I do know something of precedent law, and the broad strokes that it will
sometimes paint with. Allowing a company to patent the shape of a
product is dangerous because that precedent can then be applied to other
products (cars, toothbrushes, microwave ovens, etc)
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
