Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Herr Barnack

Leica T camera: AppCam claims Leica ripped them off

Recommended Posts

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/85785006/large&key=3b26a53227717d551b167438c5205e95b1b2cdca63a83b1bbd7022678d543802">

 

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

.

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You all are failing to understand what a trademark is.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless it was an original work (ie, the font), there's no copyright.

 

So the attorney is an idiot, right?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy