Hi Caleb, this is even crazier than IP protection, it's trademark protection. I don't have a problem with trademark protection mind you, just when your trade mark is "a grey case with a yellow surround" It's as crazy as T-Mobile suing everyone that uses their shade of red anywhere, I mean it's specified as a Pantone colour and Pantone has given use to rights to everyone, and then T-Mobile says no we've reserved xyz red. Here Fluke supposedly owns yellow and grey ie. about 1000 colour combinations. A company should have to be able to prove harm with this sort of gobbledygook.
1. Thanks for the great post, it's good to see a large company consider the impact of legal decisions.
2. Pooh pooh on the US trademarks office from ever allowing this to go ahead. Those cheap junk meters that look similar to a fluke are all over the world and most places the trademark protection doesn't exist. Guess what? people that want Fluke still buy Fluke and people that want cheap junk still buy cheap junk.
It's the same silly argument as recently whe Rolex had a court fine someone ~$10,000 beause they bought a $20 Rolex and imported it. That person was never going to buy a real Rolex just like a real Rolex buyer is never going to buy a knock-off. The seller sold it as a knock-off openly in Singapore where they are allowed to so no fraud was involved.
Google has trademarked "Google" yet no one there persecutes someone for googling on Yahoo.
It's high time these things start being governed by loss having occurred by the plaintif.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.