Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Patents Apple

Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue 111

Posted by timothy from the called-dibs-too-late dept.
wabrandsma points out this Reuters story, according to which: Apple is not able to launch its new smartwatch in Switzerland until at least the end of this year because of an intellectual property rights issue, Swiss broadcaster RTS reported on its website. The U.S. tech giant cannot use the image of an apple nor the word 'apple' to launch its watch within Switzerland, the home of luxury watches, because of a patent from 1985, RTS reported, citing a document from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue More

Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue

Comments Filter:

  • Patent? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Sunday April 05, 2015 @12:39PM (#49410437)

    The article doesn't give any details about what the word apple or an apple logo has to do with a patent. A trademark I could understand, but a patent?

    • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      I think somebody needs to translate this from Swiss. Seems like what would be termed a 'design patent' in the US (think rounded corners). But it sure sounds like a trademark issue.

      Why can't everybody speak American?

    • The rte link suggests a trademark

      https://www.rts.ch/info/econom... [www.rts.ch]

    • The article doesn't give any details about what the word apple or an apple logo has to do with a patent. A trademark I could understand, but a patent?

      It may be analagous to a US Design Patent.

    • Clearly somebody patented telling time with apples.

    • Swiss patent clerks are not exactly renowned for their insights.

      Oops!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by robi5 ( 1261542 )

      Scratching my head, probably it takes an Einstein to figure this out

  • It's a trademark (Score:5, Informative)

    by Paul Bristow ( 118584 ) on Sunday April 05, 2015 @12:51PM (#49410499) Homepage

    Looking at the RTS article (in French) it's clearly a trademark issue, not a patent.

    Normally patents expire 20 years after filing, so Reuters should have smelled a rat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      thanks Paul

      It will be a very bad day for everyone when an ordinary word or image can be patented.

    • Yeah, this is a trademark issue. Moreover, the suggestion that Apple can't launch the Apple Watch in Switzerland until later this year only holds if:
      A) Apple hasn't already worked out a licensing agreement with the rights holders that we don't know about, and...
      B) Apple isn't willing to trample the trademark and then settle with the rights holders in court

      Considering that they have a history of doing both of those (e.g. Apple secured the US rights to "iPhone" from Cisco a few days after the Apple iPhone was

    • So if Apple products cannot be called Apple in Switzerland what are they called? Orange, Banana?

  • Trademark, not patent (Score:4, Informative)

    by tele ( 246082 ) on Sunday April 05, 2015 @12:52PM (#49410503)

    It's a trademark issue about the name, not a patent issue. See http://www.steigerlegal.ch/2015/04/04/falschmeldung-apple-watch-und-das-schweizer-patent/ (in german) for a picture of the trademarked logo (and run the page through Google Translate for the details).

    • No I did not translate, but those images don't look at all the same. Same name "Apple" but seriously?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        If they're using an apple as their trademark for their watches, then even if they're only superficially similar that could cause a problem.

        The creators of the Bloom County comic strip got into hot water over their "Opus and Bill" screensaver, which featured the characters shooting down toasters with little propellers holding them up in the air. Berkeley Systems sued over the Flying Toasters trademark if I'm remembering correctly, and the software got pulled from the shelves.
    • No, It is a hoax. If you had done as you suggested, you would know that.

      • The link he provides seems to indicate that it is indeed a trademark and that it is indeed valid. They're calling it a hoax, but then they describe what sounds like a simple misunderstanding of IP law, where someone referred to a trademark as a patent. Happens all the time around here. Doesn't make it a hoax.

      • You appear to have either misunderstood the article linked to, or read a mistranslation.
        The article is quite clear (although inconsistent in one place) - this is a *trademark* and not a *patent*. Trademarks can be extended by 10 years when they expire. The inconsistency is in that they say the trademark was last extended on 15 June 2005 so it expires in 2025.

        If the trademark has not been used for 5 years, it expires.
        Apparently Apple (Switzerland) is already advertising [apple.com] their new product which would indica

        • Confident or not, Apple always acts as though they can do anything they want to, up until they are actually dragged into a court. Then they "may" make some concessions, if they can't avoid it.

  • This is the only meaty part of the article, and it's pretty damn slim and stringy.

    "The patent is set to finish on Dec. 5 of this year. It currently belongs to William Longe, who owns watch brand Leonard that first filed the patent ...
    The world's largest watchmaker Swatch unveiled its riposte to Apple's smartwatch last month, announcing a plan to put cheap programmable chips in watches that will let wearers from China to Chicago make payments with a swipe of the wrist."

  • As with West Virginia blocking Telsa, small places banning luxury items are really only spitting in the wind. Do you really think any Swiss person wanting an Apple watch is _not_ willing to make the short trip to Zurich or Lyons to get one?

  • Couldn't happen to nicer group of patent trolling litigious bastards.

  • Have thy been allowed to sell iPads and other Apple hardware? Is it only a problem now that they have tried strapping their logo to a wrist that is has become an issue?

    • Trademarks are registered by domain. This "apple" and apple-logo trademark was registered for the domain "timepiece and components" by the whatch maker "Leonard Timepieces".
      iPads aren't in the same category anyway.

      The only thing remotely related was the wrist strap that could convert the small square iPad Nano into a touch screen watch. And even back then Leonard didn't care to sue.
      In fact, in Switzerland, a patent violation is define as someone try to profit by abusing consumer confusion and trying to copy

  • Modest Proposal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tokolosh ( 1256448 )

    Put an Apple on Tim Cook's head. If a random Apple employee can shoot it with a crossbow, then the trademark is void. If Tim gets it in the face, then Swiss gnomes get to lick chocolate off the slopes of Michelle Obama.

  • Although the Girard-Perregaux Complication Bombastique Impériale was a marvel of its time, the complex geartrains required to write and mail letters, answer telephone calls and listen to the wearer's heartbeat was impossible to keep repaired and lubricated in the field, besides resulting in a device too heavy for any real-world wrist to carry. Though the concept watch was a hit at the Basel trade fair that year, the very idea of having to use a tiny set of platinum screwdrivers to connect the device to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by j-beda ( 85386 )

      Although the Girard-Perregaux Complication Bombastique Impériale was a marvel of its time, the complex geartrains required to write and mail letters, answer telephone calls and listen to the wearer's heartbeat was impossible to keep repaired and lubricated in the field, besides resulting in a device too heavy for any real-world wrist to carry. Though the concept watch was a hit at the Basel trade fair that year, the very idea of having to use a tiny set of platinum screwdrivers to connect the device to a cash register to use the payment feature was a major impediment to sales.

      Just another failure of the market.

  • I wonder what Apple is going to do in the UK, which requires marking of gold items with hallmarks. [birmingham.gov.uk]

    • They'll put one on? Why wouldn't they?

      • They'll put one on? Why wouldn't they?

        First: the item must be marked by an assay office (after the maker's mark is applied by the manufacturer). Secondly, since this isn't a traditional gold alloy, traditional methods of assaying the gold may not work, thirdly, traditional methods of applying the hallmark may not work.

  • Thanks to your idiotic government, you, the world's foremost connoisseurs of fine timepieces, will be denied the right to own the most revolutionary timepiece in history. Fortunately, you have the means to change the government's mind. By law, each of your men between 20 and 30 years old has received military training and is required to maintain a military-grade automatic weapon at the ready in their homes...
  • You couldn't get more clueless than this article.

    As others have mentioned it is a trademark not patent issue and the problem doesn't just go away on December the 5th as trademarks are renewable.

    However trademarks have a requirement to be used otherwise they can be cancelled. If "Leonard Timepieces" have not used the word Apple or an Apple symbol on any products in recent years then Apple can apply to have the trademark cancelled. Apple were probably quietly waiting to see if "Leonard Timepieces" would r

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close