Patents and case designs

[Kmpkt]

Oh wow, the catz really is a terrible ripoff of the NFC S3 and S4. You can say that once you get to a certain size, the designs become more similar, but some aspects like the cutouts and wraparound front bezel are just unique to NFC that really don't need to be in a case like this.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

But everyone else insisted it was a unique blossom amongst cases and I that I was mistaken. I get that it is a flat panel, mod cube based build and that is fundamentally different than the S4 Mini, but for god's sake would it kill you to not use the exact same grill pattern and bezel construction as the S4.

 

[iFreilicht]

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

But everyone else insisted it was a unique blossom amongst cases and I that I was mistaken. I get that it is a flat panel, mod cube based build and that is fundamentally different than the S4 Mini, but for god's sake would it kill you to not use the exact same grill pattern and bezel construction as the S4.

I was among those people, but I think you're overstating the sentiment that we (or at least I) were trying to communicate. I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "different enough", but either way, I don't think this case is seriously hurting Josh's business or that anyone is arguing that the case is in any way unique in its design.

Personally, I believe the design they are employing, while clearly being very close to the S4 Mini, is different enough to justify its existence, but even without that, there is an argument to be made for the introduction of very different functionality like ODD support and having both fans on one side that is currently lacking from other cases. It fills a niche that was not filled before. If he did also use the same layout as the S4 Mini and simply tried to undercut Josh on it, then we'd have a different situation and I would be fully on board on condemning the release of such a case because at that point it would be, as you stated in the thread about that case "a blatant rip-off".

An interesting thread... clearly see, understand, and respect both sides of the argument.

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

― Oscar Wilde

Yes, I agree that we should try to keep this as civil as possible. It is a very loaded and emotional topic, but I think so far we've done a good job of not harassing each other

Flattery is nice and all, but it doesn't help if that imitation puts you out of business. And Josh is absolutely justified in fearing that, because it has almost happened to him before. A company that he had worked with patented a design of his and then sued him for selling his own creation and I think he is still recovering from the financial damages that caused.

But I also believe that one shouldn't try to intermingle large companies trying to stop growth of smaller businesses and small businesses competing with each other.

I'm completely done with this thread so I won't be answering any replies.

I understand that, but it doesn't really help with reaching a consensus on our positions.

 

[LjSpike]

Not read through all the comments, however some points:
1) The aesthetics (looks) of the case cannot be patented, they can be put as intellectual property, and sometimes parts of it (e.g. logos) can be put under copyright, but the actual look is not part of patenting.

2) The functional bits can be patented, but cannot be copyrighted. You might be able to put them under intellectual property, not sure how the law would handle that one.

Patents last for only a certain amount of time. They cover any functional breakthrough, if you have some totally new mounting bracket for the PSU using gallium-dichromate nanotube lattices, then you can patent that, it's a new functional technology that has gone into the product. Your logo, you can put under copyright, it's part of the brand identity. Stuff you come up with, can sometimes be put under intellectual property, though I'm not as familiar with its limitations.

The layout of a PC case though, where does that fall under? Well, it's not a logo or some piece of design, sure you do see the layout, but it's functional, not really decoration as such, so that rules out copyright. I also suspect you couldn't make it fall under a patent, it's not a new technology, it's just a new superficial application of the technology, also, patents aren't automatically applied, so if you haven't patented something before someone copies you, then it's too late. So really, I'm not sure you can sue on grounds of functional aspects being copied, looks however are a whole other ballgame. You can theoretically go to court over copying of looks, however all you need to do to avoid prosecution is to adjust small aspects, and that can be achieved by copying the overall style from a photograph, rather than using a specification to copy each technical detail...

Conclusion: Unless copying of the specification has been done, or a patent which has been approved has been copied (post-approval of patent), then I do not believe there is anything illegal going on...

 

[TheDreamingMonk]

Oh wow, the catz really is a terrible ripoff of the NFC S3 and S4. You can say that once you get to a certain size, the designs become more similar, but some aspects like the cutouts and wraparound front bezel are just unique to NFC that really don't need to be in a case like this.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

But everyone else insisted it was a unique blossom amongst cases and I that I was mistaken. I get that it is a flat panel, mod cube based build and that is fundamentally different than the S4 Mini, but for god's sake would it kill you to not use the exact same grill pattern and bezel construction as the S4.

You two act like Josh invented the wrap around bezel... There were cases before his that had it...

Hell, all the big Silverstone cases have had them. Probably one of the most famous cases in the water cool / modding ( murder box ) communities... the TJ07 has had a wrap around bezel. It was released 10+ years ago now. Something like 2005/2006 if I remember right.

The FT02 had it, the newer FTZ01 has it. Really, most of Silverstone's higher end cases either have a wrap around bezel or solid aluminum face plate.

And seriously. The C-1 wrap around and the S4 Mini wrap around are... quite different. For one, the S4 only wraps 2 sides, and even ends flat under the little "hood" made by the panels. ( not counting the rear of each case with a small tab to secure them )



As for vent pattern. THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE.

NFC S4 Mini - Dashed ovals set on a 45* angle
Catz ( all in his thread ) - Squared off singular lines set on a 45* angle

The ONLY thing alike is that they're on a 45* angle.

Even comparing to the S3 Mini, now they're dashed and squared off there. But still a different pattern altogether. ( S3 also didn't have a wrap around bezel )

And quite frankly, if Josh isn't going to make the S3 Mini anymore ( and as it still fills a spot in the market, I'd take a couple ) then a competitor should step up and fill that now opened position. But those cases still aren't the Catz cases. The C1 also fills a different need than the S4 Mini as it has an option and space for an optical drive. It'll also fit the 1080 mini without any mods ( something many people may consider a plus, not everyone wants to futz around modding things ). The cases for the most part, are also larger as a whole... One fitting an SFX PSU.



I'm sorry Josh got screwed by having someone else patent his case and sue him... but that doesn't mean we need to be jumping on and scaring away people that have nothing to do with that. Much less on a case that honestly, doesn't even look like the S4 or S3 and fills completely different niche with a different crowd of people wanting them.

 

[EdZ]

The aesthetics (looks) of the case cannot be patented, they can be put as intellectual property, and sometimes parts of it (e.g. logos) can be put under copyright, but the actual look is not part of patenting.

There is actually a special class of patent called a 'Design Patent' for exactly this purpose.

 

[LjSpike]

There is actually a special class of patent called a 'Design Patent' for exactly this purpose.

You learn something new everyday. Although I guess you still have to apply for it beforehand, meaning it's not able to be retrospectively or automatically claimed. It's curious that you can put one of those patents on some of the smaller details, like a bezel... How exact does the bezel have to be to infringe?

 

[ImperialAlex]

It's curious that you can put one of those patents on some of the smaller details, like a bezel... How exact does the bezel have to be to infringe?

Patent law is very counter-intuitive. It's imho the messiest of all the intellectual property law areas. As a rule of thumb, an individual won't be able to actually protect anything with a patent (even if one gets issued) and a large Fortune 500 company can patent-protect everything, up-to-and-including the act of breathing air. *

The issue is that patents are (with some minor exceptions) only worth as much as you're able to spend on suing other people. For individuals that's usually not a lot of money while a big company can spend millions on hiring lawyers to fight pointless court battles that will ruin their (usually smaller) opponents from the legal costs alone. This is how we get "patent trolls" and of course the crazy "patent wars" where companies like Samsung and Apple fight over who invented the idea of scrolling.

* This is obviously not legal advice, see a professional patent lawyer if you actually need to deal with this stuff.

 

[iFreilicht]

Microsoft held a patent on a specific implementation of the scroll bar. The university I'm studying at actually holds the software patent for the stack. Just the stack as a general principle, as it is used in absolutely every piece of software in existence. Of course, that patent is not ever being enforced, but just the idea that something that basic could be patented is curious.

 

[LjSpike]

Microsoft held a patent on a specific implementation of the scroll bar. The university I'm studying at actually holds the software patent for the stack. Just the stack as a general principle, as it is used in absolutely every piece of software in existence. Of course, that patent is not ever being enforced, but just the idea that something that basic could be patented is curious.

Oh how interesting. What university is that?
I guess though, when they got the patent, stacks weren't a basic thing. When a GUI was first implemented, it was revolutionary, and essentially the entire of "The Mother of All Demos" which comprises so many standard things of computer systems, was completely spectacular and brilliant (hence it's very dramatic name).

 

[iFreilicht]

Oh how interesting. What university is that?

Technical University Munich. It might be that the patent expired by now.