Dbrand pulls PS5 "darkplates" from sale entirely then goes on a Twitter rant

[Derangel]

50 minutes ago, Velcade said:

Are we sure Sony is really suing?  Could be just another PR stunt to get DBrand some spotlight...

 

Hopefully Sony will manufacturer their own plates.  Plates that match the new controller colors would sell like crazy.   

 

Sony is not suing. A cease and desist letter is basically a warning saying "stop doing this infringing thing or might sue you". As long as DBrand stops selling plates for the PS5, Sony will leave them alone. If DBrand were to continue selling them, or try to escalate things, Sony would likely file a lawsuit.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

I have four minutes before the class starts.  So, I'll say this.  A dashboard that has the same shape has cutouts for electronics too.  This has been a thing with this shape for twenty plus years.  Sony has no argument.  Yes, you can make it unique to the point that a patent can hold.  But, there is not enough for Sony to go off of here.  I'm seeing several dashboards I've seen in person with this shape.

Perhaps you have, now Sony have the patent you won't be seeing them any more though. I doubt they were exactly the same as this design anyway. You can argue semantic all you want, the fact remains that Sony now have valid patents for that shape and design and copying it is a crime.

[pas008]

are people allowed to sell phone cases for all types phones without licenses?

 

 

to me this is along those lines more than other examples like car parts,

[jagdtigger]

I think an overhaul of the patent system is long overdue, specifically cases where someone/something patents something thenv doesnt use it just trolls around. Like sony in this case.... (they dont make any spareres let alone anything that isnt white so their patent should be voided)

[Derangel]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

are people allowed to sell phone cases for all types phones without licenses?

 

 

to me this is along those lines more than other examples like car parts,

 

A phone case doesn't replace a part of the phone, it goes over a part of the phone. It is not comparable. The phone case comparison applies more to the stickers DBrand sells then the replacement plates.

 

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I think an overhaul of the patent system is long overdue, specifically cases where someone/something patents something thenv doesnt use it just trolls around. Like sony in this case.... (they dont make any spareres let alone anything that isnt white so their patent should be voided)

 

I agree that the entire copyright system, patents and all, need to be reworked but that has nothing to do with selling replacements or different colors. Right-to-repair covers replacements, not the copyright system.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

and those shapes themselves are not unique enough

Coke bottle patent?

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Derangel said:

 

A phone case doesn't replace a part of the phone, it goes over a part of the phone. It is not comparable. The phone case comparison applies more to the stickers DBrand sells then the replacement plates.

 

 

I agree that the entire copyright system, patents and all, need to be reworked but that has nothing to do with selling replacements or different colors. Right-to-repair covers replacements, not the copyright system.

comparable to me

this is just customizing your own product with a companies product to fit someone elses product

same thing isnt it

a phone case is customizing your own product with a companies product with someone elses product

are phone designs patented?

thats why i'm asking if you need a license to sell the new iphone9000 case

[leadeater]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Coke is unique enough because they pay companies to over manipulate the shape.  On their website they talk about how they hired a glass company to make the bottle's shape so unique that it was it's own shape.  That, you can patent.  Now, you can have a glass or plastic bottle for your own cola as long as the shape doesn't violate this patent.  Sony didn't create as nything unique like that this is a common shape, and so is the one for the optical version.  Plus, Sony openly left a trail that proves their actual motive, an illegal monopoly.

Its really not hard, it's literally the same design, a design that is patented. Forget the shape man, the DESIGN is patented. If you make a side panel for the PS5 that is the same shape with the same clips and fixing to the PS5 then you HAVE infringed on the PS5 chassis design.

 

Also a car dashboard or anything else is obviously sufficiently different to the PS5 side panel, please don't bring obviously bad and stupid points in to this. If it's literally the same in every aspect other than colour and specific plastic composition then you have infringed on the design patent.

 

The shape of the panels, that includes the clips etc because that does matter, is attributed to an actual product, the PS5. If anyone knows what a PS5 looks like then you can identify them on looks alone.

 

If it goes to court I will happily place money on Sony winning.

[CT854]

I generally don't like it when big corporations flex their protectionist muscle against smaller third parites, but it's just unimaginably hilarious to me how Sony sent a cease-and-desist after dbrand literally dared them to sue them.

 

All bark, no bite. dbrand fucked around and found out.

[Derangel]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

comparable to me

this is just customizing your own product with a companies product to fit someone elses product

same thing isnt it

a phone case is customizing your own product with a companies product with someone elses product

are phone designs patented?

thats why i'm asking if you need a license to sell the new iphone9000 case

To be blunt: It doesn't matter if YOU think it's comparable. What matters is the law.

 

Ideally, stuff like this would be perfectly legal to do. However, that is not the case right now.

[tikker]

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

comparable to me

this is just customizing your own product with a companies product to fit someone elses product

same thing isnt it

a phone case is customizing your own product with a companies product with someone elses product

are phone designs patented?

thats why i'm asking if you need a license to sell the new iphone9000 case

The difference is you are covering the back of the phone with an extra bit of material, not replacing the entire original phone case. Just like the above discussion about coke bottles, if they have patented the design of the phone's case, then you indeed need a license to sell the iphone9000 case if it's a literal replacement of the case instead of a plastic thing that slips on.

[TheSage79]

On 10/17/2021 at 12:06 AM, Master Disaster said:

Anyone remember Dbrand baiting Sony with the message "go ahead, sue us"? Well they just received a C&D from Sony legal and PS5 darkplates are officially collectors items.... for now at least.

Dbrand are complying with the request but its pretty obvious they have a plan to fight back. I wonder if this was an Epic Apple type situation with Dbrand hoping this would happen just so they could challenge it.

The company has been on a huge rant over on the /r/dbrand subreddit, you can read it in full here -

And if anyone wants to read the full letter The Verge posted it here - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21085950/sony-cd-letter-to-dbrand.pdf

Source - https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/16/22728936/dbrand-pulls-ps5-darkplates-from-sale-sony-threatens-legal-action

 

What the actual fuck. Sony obviously have some kind of proprietary plans for the PS5 faceplates involving licensing and more money for customers but holy hell. Bad move Sony.

Sony would get absolutely crushed in (a US) court if they tried to sue over this. dBrand's products are aftermarket products pure and simple and dBrand is completely within its rights to produce aftermarket products for whatever products they want. 

[pas008]

14 minutes ago, tikker said:

The difference is you are covering the back of the phone with an extra bit of material, not replacing the entire original phone case. Just like the above discussion about coke bottles, if they have patented the design of the phone's case, then you indeed need a license to sell the iphone9000 case if it's a literal replacement of the case instead of a plastic thing that slips on.

so its a replacement part then?

wouldnt this be fine under the right to repair and no other place to get said part?

[Derangel]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

so its a replacement part then?

wouldnt this be fine under the right to repair and no other place to get said part?

 

Ideally, yes. Well written right to repair laws would allow stuff like this. Of course, that requires those laws to actually get passed.

[tikker]

10 minutes ago, pas008 said:

so its a replacement part then?

wouldnt this be fine under the right to repair and no other place to get said part?

AFAIK not if the part itself is patent-protected. Right to repair wants to fight the practise of deliberately making devices nigh impossible to repair, not offering parts, schematics or anything and not allowing anyone except the chosen few to attempt a repair. It's is not a patent infringement free card.

 

Then there's also the distinction between original identical replacements and aftermarket replacements. There are different levels at play here. If only the PS5 (phone in your analogy) had been patented as a whole this would have been fine. The point here is that the design of the face plate (your phone's case) specifically is also patented.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

AFAIK not if the part itself is patent-protected. Right to repair wants to fight the practise of deliberately making devices nigh impossible to repair, not offering parts, schematics or anything and not allowing anyone except the chosen few to attempt a repair. It's is not a patent infringement free card.

 

Then there's also the distinction between original identical replacements and aftermarket replacements. There are different levels at play here. If only the PS5 (phone in your analogy) had been patented as a whole this would have been fine. The point here is that the design of the face plate (your phone's case) specifically is also patented.

Exactly, and even if right to repair laws where already in effect, those laws would not necessarily mean anyone can make replacement parts. A lot of times right to repair people are arguing that first party parts need to be available, not third party parts.

I mean, if we take right to repair to the extreme, should AMD have to post documentation for how to make their processors online, just because I might want to repair my AMD laptop with a CPU from a third party?

Same deal here. Even if right to repair had passed, it would probably not allow just anyone to copy anything. The argument is usually that the first party parts need to be purchasable and supplied to repair shops.

[Arika]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

A PS5 side panel's shape has been overly done by other part makers.

By WHO? you've been going on and on about some mystical third party that apparently owns the shape of the side panel and that it has existed before. Prove it. Link multiple images, since apparently it's not unique, of that exact side panel on things that are not the ps5.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you please post prior art to the faceplates?

Please note that regardless of what dBrand's shitty marketing team is telling you, the issue is not the symbols. There are four separate issues that all, when combined, caused Sony to ask dBrand to stop selling the faceplates.

 

1) The design of the faceplate (the shape as well as how it clips on to the console) is protected by Sony. You can't just copy that and sell it as your own.

 

2) dBrand are selling items with the Playstation logo on them. That's a big no-no that not even third party parts for cars or phones do (unless they want to get sued but don't care). dBrand can't legally sell products with the Playstation logo on it just like I can't start a company selling clothes with dBrand's logo on them.

 

3) The shapes dBrand put on the faceplate are, according to dBrand themselves, based on the trademarked Playstation icons. By the way, despite the hilariously stupid Squid Game comparison dBrand's idiotic marketing team tried to pull, the fact of the matter is that you are not allowed to just take whatever name or shape you want and then go into a market. The reason why Squid game isn't "breaking Sony's trademark" is because Squid game is a TV show and they had the symbols on a business card in once scene. Meanwhile, dBrand are in the console accessories market, selling products for gaming consoles.

This is similar to the issue Apple Inc got into when they tried to enter the music industry. Did you know that there is a company called "Apple Corps" that was founded by the Beatles? Apple Inc was sued for trademark infringement but were allowed to keep their name as long as they did not enter the music industry (because having a computer company called Apple and a music company called Apple was not seen as a big deal, that deal did not hold up well when iTunes launched I might add). Anyway, having two companies doing similar looking things is not an issue as long as they are not in the same industry. Case in point, circles, triangles and squares in a TV show vs on a game console. 

 

4) dBrand named and marketed their products things such as "Sony PS5 Skins". That can be seen as misleading.

 

 

All these four things COMBINED, is the issue. You can point out flaws in these things individually but when combined it becomes an issue. It was the same with the Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Apple does not own rounded corners. However, they do own rounded corners IN COMBINATION with other design things. Same deal here.

I agree with what LeadEater said in that if it goes to court Sony will win.  Did dBrand infringe on Sonys right, yes.   I think a larger question that should arise from this though is whether or not it's stupid that Sony is able to be granted patents like this.  I'm all for patent law, but it has never sit well with me that someone can patent the shapes of objects (especially when it's for design purposes).  Fine, try trademarking it but patents are silly.  The way I put it, imagine being able to patent a recipe.  There is something inherently wrong when someone can come in an patent the "page up" button's feature of moving a page up by one full page, or a "buy now" one click feature.  Patents were created to allow creators time to make a profit off of innovations, but it seems now that a lot of these types of patents just cover features that the company has no intent of selling.

 

The only thing I would note about point 3 would be whether or not there is enough transformation away from the trademark to make it almost sort of a parody of it.  With that said the skins part fails by using the playstation logo.

[Video Beagle]

7 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

 if I take the apple logo and turn it into an apple monster running  and eating something? does that mean its still trademarked by apple, no.

you can be inspired by a trademark and make something your own.

 

 

7 hours ago, Derangel said:

3. If you take the Apple logo and turn it into an Apple monster and try to use it on any device that is in a market where Apple also operates you would be violating trademark law.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also until you try and sell it then it's art and protected, once you have a financial gain from it then it becomes a breach. At least in the US creative arts is protected so you can pretty well do anything you like as long as you do not monetize, defame or devalue the original trademark. The second two are also a hard one because parody is allowed and a trademark owner may not like a parody but have no grounds to litigate.

 

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trademark-parody-and-freedom-of-speech-70581/

 

 

As the article leadeater posted gets to, case law on parody and trademark is unclear. There's T-shirt companies who've been sued (and lost) for shirts that parody a logo, so not even something as obvious as the jack daniels shaped bottles in the article.  (I remeber it was a starbucks parody..so primary market, beverages.. vs a known comic artist...but I can't remember the details now)

[linkboy]

Well, here we go again. Dbrand announced a new version of their PS5 plates that has a different design then Sony's.

 

Let's see what Sony does.

 

 

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, Video Beagle said:

 

 

 

As the article leadeater posted gets to, case law on parody and trademark is unclear. There's T-shirt companies who've been sued (and lost) for shirts that parody a logo, so not even something as obvious as the jack daniels shaped bottles in the article.  (I remeber it was a starbucks parody..so primary market, beverages.. vs a known comic artist...but I can't remember the details now)

A lot of it comes down to the strength of the arguments made and how the judge (or jury) end up interpreting fair use and parody.

[Duskie]

21 minutes ago, linkboy said:

Well, here we go again. Dbrand announced a new version of their PS5 plates that has a different design then Sony's.

 

Let's see what Sony does.

 

 

The reddit post is quite entertaining too.

 

 

[Maticks]

i am shocked Sony would go as far as to admit that ugly thing called the PS5 was "designed" it is the weirdest shaped box.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Duskie said:

The reddit post is quite entertaining too.

 

 

I wonder if dBrand is heavily moderating that thread, because the tone of the comments are completely different from the other one, and someone is handing out reddit rewards like crazy in there.

 

Edit: Yep, it's dBrand giving everyone who sucks their dick awards.

[Arika]

4 hours ago, linkboy said:

"checkmate lawyers"

Oh, please get another C&D or actually get sued. dBrand needs to dial back the edginess....