In my post, # 1774, San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the judge "implied" that the action of stealing the part (apparently when visiting a QCOM supplier) might be "unclean hands." Sure sounds like it to me.
I will go better on the car analogy. The new BMW represents a class of two seaters the design of which harkens back to the 1950's, designed just like my Mercedes-Benz 190SL (ca. 1955-63). The front of the car is slightly wider and taller than the tail. "Design" patents are, I would think, extremely difficult to prove. What about the number of phones that are so similar to the old "princess phone" from AT&T? Form follows function. Plus, as I understand the origin of design-oriented law, the way the product looks must be almost identical to the competitive and original product so that the consumer is lulled into being confused and buying the "inferior" product. That subsumes that the original product made it to the market first and established a market and "reputation." I wonder how that is possible when neither product has made it to the marketplace. But, I may be confusing "copyright" design with "patent" design, and there may be a difference in the two concepts. MOT seems to be arguing its design is extraordinarily unique, that there were alternatives. But, having looked at newspaper ads for "flip" cell phones, the retort is that, to the consumer, a flip phone is a flip phone. I have not seen the design of the Q and StarTrac, so it's hard to say; but the design would have to be really unique and strikingly different and perhaps more than just a progressive "advance" from what's out there now.
The article you cite reveals something interesting. Apparently, the number of suppliers is very small, and both QCOM and MOT are using a lot of the same ones. This raises a question of the ability of two competitors to obtain disparate designs of a product. The producers' equipment (and capital) may well restrict the design of the case that they are able to produce, so that the appearance ends up being very similar. Of course, MOT would argue that it doesn't matter whether, for example the cost of producing a different box is prohibitive (cause that keeps out competitors). Take for example the CPU box. They all look pretty much the same; until very recently you could not tell one label's from another.
By the way, the site you cite discusses yesterday's happenings in a little more detail, but they are both worth looking at. |
