TF1260 cloning legality discussion

[Chucky]

@hammer so then why do you claim that there is no "special patent"

the content of the cpld is the magic and the secret.. the hardware is just to tie shitloads of pins from the computer and cpu to them..

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Chucky

@hammer so then why do you claim that there is no "special patent"

the content of the cpld is the magic and the secret.. the hardware is just to tie shitloads of pins from the computer and cpu to them..

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible

InfoWorld wrote on the first anniversary of the IBM PC that[4]

The dark side of an open system is its imitators. If the specs are clear enough for you to design peripherals, they are clear enough for you to design imitations. Apple ... has patents on two important components of its systems ... IBM, which reportedly has no special patents on the PC, is even more vulnerable. Numerous PC-compatible machines—the grapevine says 60 or more—have begun to appear in the marketplace.


Compaq could not copy the BIOS directly as a result of the court decision in Apple v. Franklin, but it could reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and then write its own BIOS using clean room design.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by hammer

All the parts from TF536 were off-the-shelf parts without any special patent assigned to Stephen Leary, hence it's in danger from look-a-like IBM 5160 clone wars e.g. https://i.imgur.com/OLQYefT.jpg

Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone doesn't have IBM's registered logo and trademark.

Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone doesn't have an identical motherboard or case either. It's a functionally similar look-a-like, but has been designed and engineered in its own right. Which is the point I'm making. What we're talking about here isn't someone who has designed a functionally similar accelerator using the same CPLD, RAM and CPU and developing compatible firmware, which would absolutely be fair game. This is a 1:1 rip-off of the existing design, and if that 5160 clone had a 1:1 copy of IBM's motherboard and BIOS in it, you can be sure it would have been shut down in pretty short order.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone doesn't have an identical motherboard or case either. It's a functionally similar look-a-like, but has been designed and engineered in its own right. Which is the point I'm making. What we're talking about here isn't someone who has designed a functionally similar accelerator using the same CPLD, RAM and CPU and developing compatible firmware, which would absolutely be fair game. This is a 1:1 rip-off of the existing design, and if that 5160 clone had a 1:1 copy of IBM's motherboard and BIOS in it, you can be sure it would have been shut down in pretty short order.

It's probably not that clear; AFAIK at least here in Germany an electronic circuit layout is not protected by copyright law. There are possibilities to protect a design (patents, utility patents), but they need to be filed for, cost money, and are more narrow. So yes, if you do a 1:1 copy, it may be legal if the owner of the original design did not protect it. Usually very bad style nonetheless, and probably totally wrong from a moral standpoint in this case.

In contrast to that, any sufficiently non-trivial piece of software is copyright protected without any need for further action by the author(s). Nowadays most electronic devices have some kind of firmware as an essential part of their design, thus the much broader copyright laws apply here, reducing the need to protect the hardware design. But if that can be circumvented by letting the user install the firmware (and therefore breaking the law), distribution of a clone may still be legal. I am not familiar with this clone, so I do not know if that's the case here. They might also have violated other laws (trademarks, copyright for e.g. some graphical logos on the board).

That said, I have no idea about Polish copyright law, and also IANAL ofc.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by chb

It's probably not that clear; AFAIK at least here in Germany an electronic circuit layout is not protected by copyright law. There are possibilities to protect a design (patents, utility patents), but they need to be filed for, cost money, and are more narrow.

Patents are very different from copyright, which is what we're talking about here. Ideas are patented, designs are copyrighted. And while a circuit in itself might not be protected, I find it very hard to believe that there's a legal loophole that allows 1:1 cloning of entire circuit boards. It's certainly not legal to copy a design in that way in the UK or Ireland, even without registering the design with the IPO, and I was pretty sure that was a harmonised directive across the EU ("Unregistered Design Rights" here, probably a different name in Germany).

So yes, if you do a 1:1 copy, it may be legal if the owner of the original design did not protect it. Usually very bad style nonetheless, and probably totally wrong from a moral standpoint in this case.

Again, I find that a very strange state of affairs, since at a basic level, design rights are automatically applied when you create a design.

I am not familiar with this clone, so I do not know if that's the case here. They might also have violated other laws (trademarks, copyright for e.g. some graphical logos on the board).

This clone appears to be a 100% copy of the board. Not a re-engineered workalike as is the case with the poor IBM example above (which, incidentally, even shows some improvements over the IBM original). Nobody designed the clone from scratch using the same parts - it's an exact copy of the PCB.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Patents are very different from copyright, which is what we're talking about here. Ideas are patented, designs are copyrighted.

At least in Germany designs in the sense of circuit design (meaning the design is fulfilling an exclusively technical function, not an aesthetical one) are not protected by copyright. That's what I was writing about: Copyright law does not apply here.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

And while a circuit in itself might not be protected, I find it very hard to believe that there's a legal loophole that allows 1:1 cloning of entire circuit boards. It's certainly not legal to copy a design in that way in the UK or Ireland, even without registering the design with the IPO, and I was pretty sure that was a harmonised directive across the EU ("Unregistered Design Rights" here, probably a different name in Germany).

Here is a brief overview of the different protection options in Germany. Assuming nothing was registered, only the "Unregistered community design" could apply, but in Germany AFAIK those do not protect pure technical designs, but the outer appearance of a product (shape, color, texture etc.). The German term would be "Geschmacksmuster" (yes, it as strange for Germans as it looks).

The EU directive states it the following way:

Originally Posted by Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

Article 8

Designs dictated by their technical function and designs of interconnections

1. A Community design shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Again, I find that a very strange state of affairs, since at a basic level, design rights are automatically applied when you create a design.

AFAIK not if the design is purely based on technical needs. If you do some fancy looking circuit design that is supposed to have some aesthetic value, then probably yes.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

This clone appears to be a 100% copy of the board. Not a re-engineered workalike as is the case with the poor IBM example above (which, incidentally, even shows some improvements over the IBM original). Nobody designed the clone from scratch using the same parts - it's an exact copy of the PCB.

Yep, I totally understand that. And I think it's totally unacceptable behavior. Still, it may be legal to clone it if the owner did nothing to protect it - that was my point. As said, I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But I wanted to raise the issue to warn people because a lot of them assume that some sort of copyright-like protection covers electronic designs - not to defend cloning.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by chb

At least in Germany designs in the sense of circuit design (meaning the design is fulfilling an exclusively technical function, not an aesthetical one) are not protected by copyright. That's what I was writing about: Copyright law does not apply here.

Indeed, the technical function isn't what's in question here. As I said before, those same components could be connected in the same circuit and achieve the same circuit, and that's perfectly acceptable (firmware licencing aside), but they're extremely unlikely to end up in exactly the same layout, which is where the protected aspect of the design comes into it.

Here is a brief overview of the different protection options in Germany. Assuming nothing was registered, only the "Unregistered community design" could apply, but in Germany AFAIK those do not protect pure technical designs, but the outer appearance of a product (shape, color, texture etc.). The German term would be "Geschmacksmuster" (yes, it as strange for Germans as it looks).

And that seems to agree with what I'm saying. The design from a layout perspective is its physical shape, and those parts can be arranged in a million different ways with the same function. But they're not; they're identical.

AFAIK not if the design is purely based on technical needs. If you do some fancy looking circuit design that is supposed to have some aesthetic value, then probably yes.

The majority of the circuitry layout in a design like this isn't dictated by technical requirements. Pin A is connected to pin B, that's more or less the end of the technical requirement, but what pattern is used to connect pin A to pin B can be anything within certain limits. Having those traces in exactly the same place when there's no technical need is simply copying the shape and appearance of the original.

Yep, I totally understand that. And I think it's totally unacceptable behavior. Still, it may be legal to clone it if the owner did nothing to protect it - that was my point. As said, I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But I wanted to raise the issue to warn people because a lot of them assume that some sort of copyright-like protection covers electronic designs - not to defend cloning.

The artwork involved in electronic design is indeed subject to copyright. So the actual schematics used are copyright, even if the technical aspect of them is not. To clone this (or any board, like the IBM example given), you need to draw your own schematics that achieve the same function and create your own layout that achieves the same function, and even if every pin is connected in exactly the same way, the resulting schematic drawings and PCB layout will differ from the original artwork. Neither of these things were done in this case, but both were done in the case of the IBM 5160. And that's a crucial difference.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

And that seems to agree with what I'm saying. The design from a layout perspective is its physical shape, and those parts can be arranged in a million different ways with the same function. But they're not; they're identical.

AFAIU that does not matter as long as the motivation for that design is a pure technical one.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

The majority of the circuitry layout in a design like this isn't dictated by technical requirements. Pin A is connected to pin B, that's more or less the end of the technical requirement, but what pattern is used to connect pin A to pin B can be anything within certain limits. Having those traces in exactly the same place when there's no technical need is simply copying the shape and appearance of the original.

Again, AFAIU the design can only be protected if its motivated by something else than a technical function, e.g. a special appearance. But even there limitations apply:

Originally Posted by Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

(12) Protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a product, nor to those features of such part which are not visible when the part is mounted, or which would not, in themselves, fulfill the requirements as to novelty and individual character

That IMHO rules out community design protection for an A1200 turbo board.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

The artwork involved in electronic design is indeed subject to copyright. So the actual schematics used are copyright, even if the technical aspect of them is not. To clone this (or any board, like the IBM example given), you need to draw your own schematics that achieve the same function and create your own layout that achieves the same function, and even if every pin is connected in exactly the same way, the resulting schematic drawings and PCB layout will differ from the original artwork. Neither of these things were done in this case, but both were done in the case of the IBM 5160. And that's a crucial difference.

Interesting argumentation. I see your point, but AFAIU copyright needs at least here some level of creativity, and the bar for this is usually rather high for product design. If an average board designer could come up with that layout (not: would come up inevitably with exactly the same) , it's not protectable. It's a bit unfair to designers, as you could apply that argument to every second pop song, but usually artistic creativity is more appreciated than technical creativity. If you'd put the traces to form something of artistic value, it might be different.

But as said, I may be wrong, but if it's important for someone's project, you should definitely consult a knowledgeable person (and that's not me for sure).

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by chb

AFAIU that does not matter as long as the motivation for that design is a pure technical one.

But that's my point, the positioning of any of the parts or traces involved in this board is not a purely technical one. Some board designers favour right angles, others prefer orthogonal layouts for example.

Again, AFAIU the design can only be protected if its motivated by something else than a technical function, e.g. a special appearance.

The "special appearance" here is your interpretation. The technical considerations are things that you see on the schematic, i.e. what connects to what, and to an extent, things like trace length, width, impedance etc., none of which dictates precisely where the CPU or any trace goes on the board.

That IMHO rules out community design protection for an A1200 turbo board.

No, it doesn't. For the end user of a TF card, all the components and surface traces are visible. Only the internal power planes aren't visible to the end user. EU directives make special considerations for what might be considered internal components, which are fitted by the end user. Graphics cards and sound cards all come under this, for example, and Amiga accelerators do to.

Interesting argumentation. I see your point, but AFAIU copyright needs at least here some level of creativity, and the bar for this is usually rather high for product design. If an average board designer could come up with that layout (not: would come up inevitably with exactly the same) , it's not protectable. It's a bit unfair to designers, as you could apply that argument to every second pop song, but usually artistic creativity is more appreciated than technical creativity.

Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of arbitrarily positioned points on a board like this, it's extremely unlikely that any two designers would come up with the same design. An average board designer will come up with a vaguely similar design based on the schematics, but that's not the case here. It's *identical*.

Average designers draw protected-yet-not-groundbreaking designs all the time (I know - I'm one of them, amongst around 40 other "average designers" where I work). That doesn't stop people at other companies drawing similar designs, but it does protect that exact design from being used elsewhere.

[Promilus]

as you could apply that argument to every second pop song

Well Katy Perry was sued for Black Horse... basically 4 notes and was ruled out as guilty by a jury. That's not the only case. When it comes to songs, books, movies etc. there's quite a lot of shit in copyright infringement dept. When it comes to consumer electronic suddenly "nah, that's fine... it's only mirror image of the original and sold as one, who cares". Somehow I find it hard to believe that's indeed the case. If it was many companies wouldn't spend millions of dolars just to license design.

[hooverphonique]

I agree with Daedalus that a schematic or a pcb layout is as much a copyrightable drawing as any other drawing...

[hammer]

Originally Posted by hooverphonique

I agree with Daedalus that a schematic or a pcb layout is as much a copyrightable drawing as any other drawing...

"The right to repair" is the major counter-argument. Devices are more than non-functional works of art.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone doesn't have an identical motherboard or case either. It's a functionally similar look-a-like, but has been designed and engineered in its own right. Which is the point I'm making. What we're talking about here isn't someone who has designed a functionally similar accelerator using the same CPLD, RAM and CPU and developing compatible firmware, which would absolutely be fair game. This is a 1:1 rip-off of the existing design, and if that 5160 clone had a 1:1 copy of IBM's motherboard and BIOS in it, you can be sure it would have been shut down in pretty short order.

Bound's TF536 clone wasn't identical to the original since it has PCB color change, and removed the CE mark, Trash Can and TF Logo.

According TF, bound has access to a machine that can cleanly dismantle PCB's layers which enables scanned PCB to be made.

PCB copying business example, http://www.kynixsemiconductor.com/News/65.html
Nowadays, there are a number of well-known companies in the industry that can help you copy those complex PCB boards.

Under US law, https://www.cnczone.com/forums/gener...html#post99586
The US CopyRight and Patent laws are different from the rest of the world. US applies 'First Invented', everywhere else applies 'First Filed'. The US allows under First Filed different scope than else where, some more extensive, some less so. For intellectual property extensive range for Copyright of Commercial, creative and industrial Property - including artwork and Software apply. While a circuit boards plans (not schematics) are probably protected by copyright, the copyright is weak because the boards are useful articles under section 101, and copyright does not protect industrial design in the US. Circuit boards are utilitarian works and it is the utility one seeks to protect, not the artistic expression of that utility. Should the plans be awarded copyright, that is if the plans are protected, they are protected only in their aesthetic aspects under the IP law, and then only to the extent that their aesthetic aspects are separable from their utilitarian aspects Since the boards' layouts are probably dictated solely by function, and not by aesthetics, copyright protection is likely to be weak or nonexistent. Unlike architecture (before the 1990 Act), circuit boards are not designed for aesthetic viewing. In a case of egregious copying involving the plans, a court might be tempted to award damages, but doubtful. Injunctive relief is unlikely in the extreme. The 1984 silicon statute covering trace and substrate was explicitly made in law to protect semiconductor chips. There is no similar coverage for plans ( circuit board layout) or for circuit schematics other than where the schematic contains entirely non publicly available proprietory silicon and the plan is a necessary functional additive element of the function of the silicon .

----------
PC clone industry can exist in the US.

Note why Tesla and Apple uses DRM and unique component ID list stored in encrypted memory storage methods to protect componet designs.

Weak US copyright law on PCB is similar to Germany's.

As for Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone argument, it's in cloner's own interest to modify IBM's design to be cheaper i.e. the "cheap knockoff" direction.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

But that's my point, the positioning of any of the parts or traces involved in this board is not a purely technical one. Some board designers favour right angles, others prefer orthogonal layouts for example.


The "special appearance" here is your interpretation. The technical considerations are things that you see on the schematic, i.e. what connects to what, and to an extent, things like trace length, width, impedance etc., none of which dictates precisely where the CPU or any trace goes on the board.

I think there's a misunderstanding what a "purely determinated by technical needs" means in this term. You define it in a very narrow sense it means only things for which no other solution exists. But IMHO it's everything a designer did not choose for a clearly different (e.g. aesthetic) purpose. For a lot of things different equivalent solutions exist. If you favor right angles, that probably does not count as artistic expression. If you form a complex logo out of your traces and components, then probably yes.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

No, it doesn't. For the end user of a TF card, all the components and surface traces are visible. Only the internal power planes aren't visible to the end user. EU directives make special considerations for what might be considered internal components, which are fitted by the end user. Graphics cards and sound cards all come under this, for example, and Amiga accelerators do to.

Yes, Amiga accelerators are internal components, and thus not visible when fitted by the end user. The EU directive I cited explicitly excluded them from design protection. BTW, there's atm a lot of discussion about this in another area: automotive spare parts. Those visible are protected as designs (and thus come only from as original/licensed parts at steep prices), while the internal parts get no design protection (but ofc can be protected by patents etc.). See here.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of arbitrarily positioned points on a board like this, it's extremely unlikely that any two designers would come up with the same design. An average board designer will come up with a vaguely similar design based on the schematics, but that's not the case here. It's *identical*.

Again, see above. I very well unterstand that it's a 1:1 clone, that's not the point. As wrote before, the question is if an average designer could have done that design, i.e. if it was standard level of engineering or something extraordinary, not if he would come up with the exactly identical to the last trace design - with that definition, everything would be protected, because for anything but the simplest design the layout would slightly vary.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but this article from a legal scholar at Max Planck Gesellschaft seems to align with what I've written:

3.3 German Copyright Law
German Courts have imposed a further requirement for applied art, employed in the design of useful objects, in that the work of the designer must be something out of the ordinary and must show the artist’s personal ideas.3 A PCB drawing is unlikely to have sufficient personal artistic content because the diagram is dictated by the electrical functionality of the device in which the PCB would be used. Article 2(2) of the German Copyright Act has been interpreted by German courts to the effect that works are only protected by copyright if they show a sufficient level of creativity.4 As a PCB will, in most cases, be designed to achieve a technical result, there is insufficient personal intellectual creation for copyright protection. It is unlikely that copyright protection would extend to PCBs. Even if copyright does exist in a circuit diagram, copying a PCB itself, without having used the drawing, would not under German law be considered as indirectly infringing copyright in the drawing.
[...]
7 Conclusions
Though technically different, as with ICs, the layout designs of PCBs, because of their functional (or utilitarian) nature, cannot be effectively protected under copyright law. Equally, due to the lack of ‘‘inventiveness’’, they cannot be protected under patent law even though any processes implemented in the work may be arguably patentable. A brief survey here confirms that the direct protection of layouts in PCBs is limited in many jurisdictions if such protection can be found. The existing categories of IP protection do not clearly fit layout designs on PCBs, which is unsatisfactory as the industry perceives a substantial risk that such works may not be protected

The article does not discuss design protection in Germany unfortunately. A clone could furthermore fall under Unfair Competition, but that's questionable if your product is not offered in that market.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Average designers draw protected-yet-not-groundbreaking designs all the time (I know - I'm one of them, amongst around 40 other "average designers" where I work). That doesn't stop people at other companies drawing similar designs, but it does protect that exact design from being used elsewhere.

If you have the chance, you may ask your legal department about that (if you do business in Germany). I really would be interested in their opinion.

Again, I want to stress again I'm not defending cloning in cases like the TF boards, on the contrary. I just want to warn people that they give a thought if IP protection is important for their project, to avoid nasty surprises.

Originally Posted by Promilus

Well Katy Perry was sued for Black Horse... basically 4 notes and was ruled out as guilty by a jury. That's not the only case. When it comes to songs, books, movies etc. there's quite a lot of shit in copyright infringement dept. When it comes to consumer electronic suddenly "nah, that's fine... it's only mirror image of the original and sold as one, who cares". Somehow I find it hard to believe that's indeed the case. If it was many companies wouldn't spend millions of dolars just to license design.

That's because copyright law historically had nothing to do with technical products, just since software is copyrighted those fields start to overlap strongly. There are other possibilities meant to protect intellectual property in tech, which are very different in their motivation, tradition, scope and time limits, so you cannot draw conclusions for the one field based on the other one. And yes, copyright protection is often crazy, even more so if a jury is involved.

[AJCopland]

Hey, this is supposed to be a thread about the TF1260, which thankfully looks like it will still get finished.

Could a mod split out the legal arguing about bound/copyright law/etc into a new thread?

...and then delete this comment?

[Jope]

Split from http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=100045

[Charles Littell]

Originally Posted by hammer

Bound's TF536 clone wasn't identical to the original since it has PCB color change, and removed the CE mark, Trash Can and TF Logo.

According TF, bound has access to a machine that can cleanly dismantle PCB's layers which enables scanned PCB to be made.

PCB copying business example, http://www.kynixsemiconductor.com/News/65.html
Nowadays, there are a number of well-known companies in the industry that can help you copy those complex PCB boards.

Under US law, https://www.cnczone.com/forums/gener...html#post99586
The US CopyRight and Patent laws are different from the rest of the world. US applies 'First Invented', everywhere else applies 'First Filed'. The US allows under First Filed different scope than else where, some more extensive, some less so. For intellectual property extensive range for Copyright of Commercial, creative and industrial Property - including artwork and Software apply. While a circuit boards plans (not schematics) are probably protected by copyright, the copyright is weak because the boards are useful articles under section 101, and copyright does not protect industrial design in the US. Circuit boards are utilitarian works and it is the utility one seeks to protect, not the artistic expression of that utility. Should the plans be awarded copyright, that is if the plans are protected, they are protected only in their aesthetic aspects under the IP law, and then only to the extent that their aesthetic aspects are separable from their utilitarian aspects Since the boards' layouts are probably dictated solely by function, and not by aesthetics, copyright protection is likely to be weak or nonexistent. Unlike architecture (before the 1990 Act), circuit boards are not designed for aesthetic viewing. In a case of egregious copying involving the plans, a court might be tempted to award damages, but doubtful. Injunctive relief is unlikely in the extreme. The 1984 silicon statute covering trace and substrate was explicitly made in law to protect semiconductor chips. There is no similar coverage for plans ( circuit board layout) or for circuit schematics other than where the schematic contains entirely non publicly available proprietory silicon and the plan is a necessary functional additive element of the function of the silicon .

----------
PC clone industry can exist in the US.

Note why Tesla and Apple uses DRM and unique component ID list stored in encrypted memory storage methods to protect componet designs.

Weak US copyright law on PCB is similar to Germany's.

As for Look-a-like IBM 5160 clone argument, it's in cloner's own interest to modify IBM's design to be cheaper i.e. the "cheap knockoff" direction.

So if I am getting this right, if you just leave a couple of images off the board and change its color then I can copy any board I want? So I can copy a vampire 1200 board if I change its color and leave something off the board like a logo? I know you cannot be serious, if this was true then we would be flooded with every board you can this off for our Amigas!

[Daedalus]

It's interesting that German law seems to have specific exemptions, which isn't the case for the rest

Originally Posted by chb

If you have the chance, you may ask your legal department about that (if you do business in Germany). I really would be interested in their opinion.

The stance of our IP department is precisely what I'm basing my points on. We trade worldwide, including in Germany. If I draw a mundane part, say an internal clasp, there's absolutely no way that that could be patented, it's a trivial, mundane design that anyone competent "could" come up with, and one that is never seen by the user. But equally, there's absolutely no way any other manufacturer could use that exact design of a clasp. They'll simply redesign it from scratch and end up with a similar, but non-identical design.

Of course, if they did make a 1:1 copy, it might never be discovered, but a company still wouldn't risk it. In fact, companies will even go out of their way to make a coincidentally similar part look different to a competitor's counterpart purely to avoid the legal risk.

That's because copyright law historically had nothing to do with technical products

Indeed, but designs (which includes things like PCB layouts, internal mould profiles etc.), however mundane and utilitarian, and regardless of how visible they are to the end user, are considered artwork. They don't have to be anything elaborate or have artistic merit, they just have to be the creator's own work have have some basic element of creativity, which the TF board clearly has. If you, as a reasonably informed user, can tell the difference between a TF board and another similar accelerator (and you can of course), it is sufficiently original to qualify as an unregistered design.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by hammer

Bound's TF536 clone wasn't identical to the original since it has PCB color change, and removed the CE mark, Trash Can and TF Logo.

I really can't tell if you're being serious here or not. Have you looked at the IBM clone and the original? Can you not see how entirely differently they have been engineered from the ground up. I've pointed it out to you already, but you seem intent on ignoring it: The clone isn't just a colour and logo change. It's an entirely different machine from the ground up that has been made to look and behave in a similar fashion. Even the case metalwork is totally different.

I've no idea why you think US law is relevant here, but even so, try use one of those cloning companies to mass produce a 100% copy of an IBM board and see how well you get on.

[hooverphonique]

Originally Posted by hammer

"The right to repair" is the major counter-argument. Devices are more than non-functional works of art.

What does that have to do with if the technical drawings of a device are copyrighted or not?