Watch companies are sending out "Cease and Desist" notices to websites offering copies of their designs for Smart watches.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/24/s...h-face-piracy/
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
The cat is out of the bag.
It is so easy to get any display on a smart watch and so much fun to switch, while it is no easier to stop than music/film/book copying.
I understand that they need to be seen doing it for their customer base but for the rest it just ADDS to the aspirational and Veblen value. There simply is no sales threat and neither is there a deceptive value in it. Well, unless they are planning to bring out their own
Correct. It has nothing to do with lost sales.
It is theft through the none authorised use of the watch companies' IP, including the design and logo. therefore infringement of copyright and registered TM, so a criminal act.
Well, according to the letter of the law yes, but imo the law is not the least bit ethical in the area of patenting/tm* etc, so I applaud this not at all faking or deceiving use.Originally Posted by rob-vicar
I see this more as a miscarriage of justice than correct.
* see Marina Militare, NATO/G10, Broad Arrow and MANY more such exploiting misappropriations in which the tax payer subsidizes State protection of not at all that just monopolies.
Interestingly a guy at work showed me his smart watch today that had a Rolex Sub dial watch face, looked very cool, also has a Daytona and Panerai watch face - switching between is a mater of a couple of screen taps.
Ethical or not, that's irrelevant as it is the law. But I do agree it's not faking, as there isn't an original, or deceiving / passing off, as again there isn't an original.
It is theft of IP, TM and infringement of C, not matter how you justify it within your POV on ethics
Any link to where he got it?
I would buy and wear one even though I only have a stupid phone.
It is very relevant and the last sentence is plain mistaken. When having a different pov it is not theft and the law wrong. As to the obligation to adhere to the law when that is wrong, well, there have been revolutions because of that. The law is maintaining the order of establishment and that is not perse correct.
In this case it is imo very much gone onto the wrong side.
Now you are free to think I am wrong and you have the law on your side. Do by all means read the topic about the Broad Arrow brand though and look up the Nato strap too.
For a lot of people when growing up they see these brands as aspirational and love the designs. I admit to having owned a fake sub in my youth and it was my ambition to get the real deal. The manufacturers obviously take issue with the fact these fakes will be cheaply manufactured and passed off as fakes by the owners and thus making people believe that the real watches are over priced tat. However this will never be the case in this instance and most people will see them as a harmless tongue in cheek nod to iconic designs. In essence they are really a screen saver, aren't they??
If they lightened up on the whole matter of their IP rights etc they might see this as free advertising, however many of the people having these might not be aspirational enough to promote their band if that makes sense? Its about control over who endorses the brand, which of course is their right to choose.
I do realise that I have contradicted myself
I think it wrong that Eddie lost the Broadarrow case. I assume you think the same. Clearly Eddie was passionate about it. However, he doesn't use that name anymore - so legalities do matter, just because you think them wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't comply.
When the law is ethically wrong you have every right to disobey. You may be prosecuted and be forced to comply, but that does not make it right.
tataaaaaaa
and that will score them a lot more positive than the ethically questionable oppression.
Thank you for allowing me to think freely, didn't realise I needed your permission. I never said you were wrong or that your POV was wrong either. I merely stated that the smart watch face designers are infringing TM, C by using the IP of another company which legally owns the IP. That is wrong according to the law, as it is theft. Stealing is wrong imo.
As to whether unauthorised use of someone else's IP is or is not theft? That's for the courts to decide, not members of a watch forum.
You have the right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to protest, you do not have the right to disobey the law just because you disagree with it. If that were the case there would not be any point in having law at all.
John Rawls - Legal obligation and the duty of fair play?
Why should anyone lighten up about their property and someone using it illegally?
The clever way to go about this, would have been if the 'smart watch' designers approached the watch makers and asked for their permission first, before just going ahead. Then again that wouldn't have made any press, I mean what's a better story? 'old establishment crushes new guy bah humbug, evil change etc. etc' or 'new guy asks if its ok, old establishment say yes, industry moves forward together'
I didn't say that they should lighten up, I said if they did. They could have used this as a marketing opportunity...
It's their brand, their designs and the law is on their side they can enforce it as they wish, and I wouldn't criticise them for it...
My personal view for the record (as a rolex owner) is its a bit of harmless fun aimed to appear to a completely different demographic than their own
Relevance? When point of discussion is the theft of property from one company to another. I don't see how protecting your property and having law help protect your property is unjust. If that is the case, then anyone can use anything owned by anybody.
read this the other day on engagdet seems at the moment there happy with dcma take-down requests but give it a year and i can foresee some very large legal bills and cases.
I wonder what effect that could have a prices and smaller producers longevity as the smart watch is here to stay
Last edited by Seamaster77; 26th November 2014 at 14:52.
You even have the OBLIGATION to disobey the law when it is ethically wrong.
It is always the case that the establishment sets the rules.
Having the strongest arm behind one, does not make one per definition morally right.
On this particular subject the abusive enforcement of monopolies is morally wrong. Yes you have the right to disobey the law. You can still be forced to obey by the strong arm but that is still wrong.
You try sell 'NATO' straps on ebay.....
Ah, you think that wron. It is protected by the law and you should not.
Ah well. I will buy a smart watch with display options soon I suppose. Just to give 'them' the finger.
You misunderstand clearly...
This actually supports the fact that we have an obligation to play by the rules (ie laws) as we take the benefits of them every day, so to ignore them even if we disagree is unjust
Ahh, I get you. I have to agree, but look at it from their POV.
Here comes yet another someone / something that's using our 'stuff' without asking again! I'm tired of having to protect my 'stuff' again from unauthorised use.
(possibility of) I wouldn't mind really, if they'd asked first.
Might get away with that in Spain but not here!!
Yep, misread, got the point backwards
Ha Ha
I just though that you were in the mood for an argument and the OH was out shopping!
Cilla's still here!! (joke)
What monopoly? it's not like any company is trying to stop others making watches smart or otherwise. On this particular subject, it is the legal and moral right to protect what is yours and defend yourself to the full extent of that law against others who are stealing from you.
A right to disobey the law? So what are fines, injunctions, prisons for?
This means that the people with the highest morals and righteousness on their side are all inside?
What nonsense
LOL, no point in arguing I know I'm right
OH, heck no, strictly casual
That does not make it right. Just poor you.
To force you to behave according to norms set by the establishment.
Laws are very relative.
It all depends.
Have a look at the former Soviet Union. There was law.
Same thing as in our 'free' west or in pre bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.
If the Nazis would have been able to hold on to their conquered territories, there would be law there.
Have a look also at the US. They break any international law when it serves their interest. It is simply because nobody can make them obey.
It is all very relative and ethics are more just as guideline than laws since those mostly reflect the interests of the powers that be.
Heck, the US war of independence was about this all. A bunch of upper class blokes objecting to pay tax to England started it all. That same class now owns more of the US than anyones ever did.
In our current situation the law is serving the order of western man as a domesticated species, an ever increasing wealth gap sustained by the masses.
Imo the thread topic is an illustration of how this works.
All about a bit of screen savers telling time....
Surely ethics and morals are more relative than laws!
I have a vintage Rolex Submariner photograph, taken by a friend, as my desktop wallpaper.
I wouldn't have a Seiko.
It's nothing to do with Veblen. It's nothing to do with marketing. It's about taste. Not all of us have it.
Indeed. And whose ethics, exactly? The law maker's, or the law breaker's? If your ethics area bit twisted, perhaps you're a communist who thinks all property is theft, do you have a moral or ethical right to burgle me and pinch my stuff? Of course not, that's utter bollocks.
IIRC about Broadarrow, Omega used "Broad Arrow" for one of its watches, but had not registered the name. Then its lawyer gorillas noticed that TF had been making watches under the Broadarrow brand for a while, decided to register the name, couldn't, so bullied TF out of it. Another reason for me not wanting to align myself with Omega. I noticed that they don't go after the fakers in China, as the lawyers don't want to end up with entrails in their bed the next morning, or their family kidnapped. They only go after the easy targets. Pussies.
Back to the topic. This new technology is testing the limits of existing copyright laws. To me, a two-hundred-quid smartwatch with a Patek dial just says "I couldn't afford the real one, and am unable to discern between a disposal computerised fake and the real thing anyway".
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I have this one
There is not even a brand on it, just a bit of fun. It is only watches guys.
Not just a watch.
To me it says: 'I am having fun with a wrist accessory that has more functionality than a just telling time Veblen good'.
This.
The law is quite clear on infringement of copyright and any 'ethical stance' of the perpetrator is irrelevant and not a viable defence.
Steal something and you breaking the law, simple enough.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
What's interesting here though is that it's only a moving image on a LCD screen, there's no fakery or passing off going on, not sure how I feel about it.
Well, it doesn’t have to be about either: the image(s) violate the owner’s rights and those rights are protected in law.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I don't disagree, but is it any worse than having a picture of your watch as a screen saver on your computer or smart phone.
The watch companies are using these images to promote their own products, so yes it is worse.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
a load of fuss about nothing
Welcome to the world of luxury watches
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
