24
Voras, on 21 August 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:
Even though, my comment targets earlier discussion here, I think people need to be more careful with the phrase 'PGI's mech design looks quite similar to the Robotech version'.
In design or copyright claims, similarities need to be very specific. Just because the overall design looks rather similar to the original one, even other armor layouts, arm and leg shapes, as well as differently designed launcher bays can have a huge impact on the question if some design is a design infringement or not.
Most design patents (e.g. Apple vs. Samsung case) are deliberately extensive, so that a large number of deviations from the original design are covered.
However, the original Macross designs (and thus the Robotech claims by HG) are artworks with copyright claims and not design patents with technical drawings, defining the design.
Thus, designs created by PGI need to be very close to the original designs for copyright infringement.
From a technical point of view, they are definetely not that similar anymore. Some arbitrary design parallels like 'has two legs, two gun barrel arms, and a missile launcher on the right shoulder' are not even close.
So, all in all, I wouldn't be that concerned about these claims, even if HG can somehow keep the co-copyright to the designs.
However, you guys in the US still have to cope with a jury in court that is not neccessarily expert in the field. So, in the end, HBS/PGI need a good and convincing lawyer.
Sometimes I wish, these copyright claims would be filed at a German court. There, I would not be concerned at all about the result.
In design or copyright claims, similarities need to be very specific. Just because the overall design looks rather similar to the original one, even other armor layouts, arm and leg shapes, as well as differently designed launcher bays can have a huge impact on the question if some design is a design infringement or not.
Most design patents (e.g. Apple vs. Samsung case) are deliberately extensive, so that a large number of deviations from the original design are covered.
However, the original Macross designs (and thus the Robotech claims by HG) are artworks with copyright claims and not design patents with technical drawings, defining the design.
Thus, designs created by PGI need to be very close to the original designs for copyright infringement.
From a technical point of view, they are definetely not that similar anymore. Some arbitrary design parallels like 'has two legs, two gun barrel arms, and a missile launcher on the right shoulder' are not even close.
So, all in all, I wouldn't be that concerned about these claims, even if HG can somehow keep the co-copyright to the designs.
However, you guys in the US still have to cope with a jury in court that is not neccessarily expert in the field. So, in the end, HBS/PGI need a good and convincing lawyer.
Sometimes I wish, these copyright claims would be filed at a German court. There, I would not be concerned at all about the result.
FASA's case against Playmates failed precisely because of, quote, "numerous key design differences outweighing any general similarities in the designs"
http://web.archive.o...Playmates3.html
Alan Davion, on 23 August 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:
Now CGL, who are backed by TOPPS, the trading card company, is easily 10 times the monster that Hasbro is, and if things get far enough, I imagine TOPPS could literally bury HG.
Quote
ORDER signed by Clerk William M. McCool granting 39 Motion for Default by Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. Default entered against InMediaRes Productions, LLC. (KD) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
