Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: David Littlewood <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:15:51 +0100
In article <n2tNe.1681$sw6.1461@fed1read05>, Skip M <shadowcatcher@xxxxxxx> writes
Such matters are normally outside the scope of patents and fall into "Design Rights", at least in Europe."Tony Polson" <tp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:v7kcg1hblsh4bgml398653denqfg3vorg8@xxxxxxxxxx"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions.
That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion.
USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research.
Agreed.
The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking...
The mount is not the real issue, it is the electronic interface.
True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to.
I don't know whether the US or Japan IP laws are the same, but here in the UK (and EU) there is a "can fit/must fit" letout* that allows makers of add-on parts to follow the exact shape and design of an interface to which their part must fit. This is presumably to encourage competition. That is of course not at all the same as the independent maker being able to copy the design of the accessory part itself, they would need to avoid patent infringements and copying the actual parts themselves if protected by design right etc.
*S213(3) Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
David -- David Littlewood .
- References:
- Odd statement from Canon
- From: RichA
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Brian Baird
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Skip M
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Skip M
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Skip M
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Skip M
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: Odd statement from Canon
- From: Skip M
- Odd statement from Canon
- Prev by Date: Re: 20D Canon focus advice
- Next by Date: Re: Odd statement from Canon
- Previous by thread: Re: Odd statement from Canon
- Next by thread: Re: Odd statement from Canon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading