Leica T camera: AppCam claims Leica ripped them off

[Weltraumpräsident]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only thing which I can not understand is: why then the invitation to the guy from AppCam at all? If there was already something or everything designed, it was clear beforehand that this meeting will be pointless anyway....

[mjh]

The only thing which I can not understand is: why then the invitation to the guy from AppCam at all?

Apparently AppCam was pitching their technology to various camera vendors at the time and Leica, realising there was some similarity to their own project, would naturally have wanted to know what they were up to. That was just the prudent thing to do even if they had no intention to adopt this technology. After all there was the remote possibility that AppCam would catch on with other vendors and in that case this would be the technology the T had to compete against.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

The only thing which I can not understand is: why then the invitation to the guy from AppCam at all? If there was already something or everything designed, it was clear beforehand that this meeting will be pointless anyway....

 

It is simple courtesy.

.

[barjohn]

I beg to differ with this view. Having been an inventor with a technology that I was trying to sell to the major players, they almost always refuse to meet if they think the technology might be simialr to something they already have under developement precisely because they don't want to be accused of stealing the technology.

[jaapv]

The only thing which I can not understand is: why then the invitation to the guy from AppCam at all? If there was already something or everything designed, it was clear beforehand that this meeting will be pointless anyway....

 

Maybe Leica would have considered incorporating it if the technology they offered had been better - it clearly was not.

This whole story makes me think of the Selden Patent. The most successful use of patent law to rip a whole industry off, until Henry Ford contested it.

Edited June 13, 2014 by jaapv

[pico]

 

I am reminded of Simon Nathan, a gentleman with a great sense of humor.

 

Fuji used to give him lots of film, and Simon took to photographing individual letters, usually from neon signs. He cataloged them by letter and color. (A friend of mine did some of the cataloging.) He joked that he was going to copyright the alphabet.

.

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I beg to differ with this view. Having been an inventor with a technology that I was trying to sell to the major players, they almost always refuse to meet if they think the technology might be simialr to something they already have under developement precisely because they don't want to be accused of stealing the technology.

 

Yes, in the USA it's unlikely that there would have been a meeting at all without AppCam signing a stack of agreements up front agreeing that Leica could do whatever it want with whatever AppCam showed them. But European law is very different.

 

Sandy

[chmilar]

He joked that he was going to copyright the alphabet.

 

Well someone has gotten the pi symbol as a trademark:

 

Someone Managed to Trademark Pi - Business Insider

 

To me, that is equivalent to trademarking any other character in an alphabet.

 

The copyright, trademark, and patent offices appear to have given up on trying to reject any submission and just summarily grant them all, assuming the courts will sort out the mistakes.

[pico]

Well someone has gotten the pi symbol as a trademark:

 

Someone Managed to Trademark Pi - Business Insider

 

To me, that is equivalent to trademarking any other character in an alphabet.

 

Somebody ought to bitch-slap that butt-head. Or better yet, trademark "85785006" (followed by a period) which is his trademark case number. Scroll down for his name, address and email address.

 

 

Plaster this over any clothing you like. I might make a back-pocket emblem of it.

.

Edited June 19, 2014 by pico

[barjohn]

You all are failing to understand what a trademark is. If I created a line of cameras and I branded them with the symbol for pi, that would be a strong trademark because there is no relationship between the mathematical symbol for pi and cameras. That is why an apple is such a strong trademark for Apple Computers. Everyone knows when they see the apple with a bite out of it that it is an Apple product. They have built brand recognition from the symbol and there is no obvious relationship between the symbol and the product other than the branding created by the company. If I were a pie vendor and I used the symbol pi to brand my pies, it would not be as strong a trademark though I could probably obtain it, because the sound when spoken is similar to the object being branded. You can specify the product areas to be covered by your brand and must actually use it in interstate commerce to be able to obtain registration so you can't just tie up everything and keep anyone else from using the symbol unless it is a unique symbol you created yourself. There is of course, much more to this but just thought I would give some clarification.

[IkarusJohn]

There is a point here, though perhaps not so much in relation to π or to 

 

A few years ago, when paramotoring (flying a paraglider with a motor on your back) was gaining in popularity, some guy in the US managed to trademark the word "Paramotor". That would be like protecting the word "Automobile" in 1900. He got a lawyer to draft a cease and desist letter and sent it to anyone using the word "paramotor", demanding a royalty. Thankfully, he went away when the industry largely ignored him for what he was.

 

The recent US Supreme Court decision on patenting computer processes looks like it is heading in a sensible direction.

 

Cheers

John

[pico]

You all are failing to understand what a trademark is.

 

The attorney's cease and desist letter stated that the Pi symbol was copyrighted.

[IkarusJohn]

The attorney's cease and desist letter stated that the Pi symbol was copyrighted.

 

Unless it was an original work (ie, the font), there's no copyright.

[pico]

Unless it was an original work (ie, the font), there's no copyright.

 

So the attorney is an idiot, right?

.

[IkarusJohn]

So the attorney is an idiot, right?

 

.

 

 

Statistically? Probably ...

[jaapv]

You all are failing to understand what a trademark is. If I created a line of cameras and I branded them with the symbol for pi, that would be a strong trademark because there is no relationship between the mathematical symbol for pi and cameras. That is why an apple is such a strong trademark for Apple Computers. Everyone knows when they see the apple with a bite out of it that it is an Apple product. They have built brand recognition from the symbol and there is no obvious relationship between the symbol and the product other than the branding created by the company. If I were a pie vendor and I used the symbol pi to brand my pies, it would not be as strong a trademark though I could probably obtain it, because the sound when spoken is similar to the object being branded. You can specify the product areas to be covered by your brand and must actually use it in interstate commerce to be able to obtain registration so you can't just tie up everything and keep anyone else from using the symbol unless it is a unique symbol you created yourself. There is of course, much more to this but just thought I would give some clarification.

 

Of hou read this particular case you'll find that it is about a brand for clothing only. Nothing untoward IMO.