(30 Aug 12, 04:29AM)Roflcopter Wrote: No it isn't. Many businesses produce the exact same products, for instance farms that produce vegetables.
Farms don't create vegetation they grow it so the competition is in both the branding and the price. However there is one exception. Certain genetic mutations have been developed by companies like Monsanto that grow crops faster and have higher yield. It is otherwise impossible to patent basic raw materials. That's like Apple trying to patent carbon fiber. Which may be next on their agenda lolz j/k You are protecting a system with patents.. not raw goods.
Quote:How is it too broad? You talked about a monopoly on feature-sets as being acceptable to protect what you view as a brand. My point is that many many businesses struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves over the competition. It's a well-known and expected problem of business.
Yes. I agree with that. And i do hope courts in the future will not let big business bully competition with frivolous patent claims. But there is a level of integrity even smaller businesses have to maintain. the question is how where to draw the line between infringement and fair usage.
Quote:Logos, colors, slogans etc... cannot be patented. I don't think you're aware of what a patent is, but they only cover inventions.
Sorry to have confused you there :P I meant trademark not patent. These are also protected by law.
Quote:In some circumstances yes. I wouldn't want there to be only one supplier of carrots.
again, carrots are a raw material so they don't apply.
Quote:Brand protection should exist to avoid confusion and fake goods, but that's far from selling a similar product. And to be honest the two phones seem as similar as any two phones I've seen.
Of course similar products are going to exist. That's the basis for competition isn't it? All I'm talking about is the blatant copying of a product produced or manufactured with a system.