PS5 Console Plate Makers Provoke Sony, Then Hit Legal Trouble (kotaku.com) 50
Earlier this year, device skin maker Dbrand released a set of black PS5 faceplates and baited Sony to sue them (because that's their shtick -- to come across sassy and harsh). Sony is now obliging. Kotaku reports: As The Verge reports, Dbrand's "Darkplates" have recently been removed from the company's store, and any purchasing links now redirect to a page that only lists all the news articles written about the plates, including [a Gizmodo story]. Why pull them now? Because the company received a cease & desist letter from Sony, part of which says: "It has come to SIE's attention that dbrand has been promoting and selling console accessories in a manner that is deeply concerning to our client. First, dbrand is selling faceplates for the PSS console (in both standard edition and digital edition configurations) that replicate SIE's protected product design. Any faceplates that take the form of our client's PSS product configuration, or any similar configuration, and are: produced and sold without permission from SIE violate our client's intellectual property rights in the distinctive console design. Second, dbrand is selling skins for SIE devices that feature the PlayStation Family Mark Your company may not sell products that bear unauthorized depictions of our client's PlayStation Marks. The below still from one of dbrand's instructional videos shows a dbrand skin bearing a design identical to the PlayStation Family Mark."
For their part, Dbrand have responded with a rambling corporate shitpost on Reddit, which opens with "much like your hopes and dreams, Darkplates are dead" before eventually settling into actual legal defenses of their position, saying the plates don't violate any existing trademarks. Dbrand suspects that Sony's actual motivation here is moving to shut down competitors before revealing its own, first-party replacement panels for the PS5.
For their part, Dbrand have responded with a rambling corporate shitpost on Reddit, which opens with "much like your hopes and dreams, Darkplates are dead" before eventually settling into actual legal defenses of their position, saying the plates don't violate any existing trademarks. Dbrand suspects that Sony's actual motivation here is moving to shut down competitors before revealing its own, first-party replacement panels for the PS5.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: and more of (Score:2)
ps5.
it would nice if I could go to the store like Best Buy and buy one
idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying to do marketing without actually paying for it. As far as I can tell, you can still order it.
It actually looks kind of nice, and people should be allowed to do casemods and sell them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at it, and I didn't see trademark or patent infringement anywhere. What do you think they were infringing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> They're trying to do marketing without actually paying for it.
But did it work? Did any website advertise this for free and then have people engage by commenting on it? If only there was at least one example to prove your point.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, I'm stumped. Looks like Dbrand's little scheme failed. I mean, I hadn't even heard of them until today.
Re:idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, yeah, third-party casemods are great.
On the other hand, every specific case design is automatically copyrighted as a creative work.
By all means do your own casemods. BUT, if you're looking to make a commercial product:
1) Do NOT use Sony, Playstation, PS5, or any other trademark etc. in your advertising without making it *very* clear that it is NOT your trademark, and you are only specifying compatibility (also, research the law for the exact "do not cross" lines. Companiess are actually required by law to defend their trademarks pretty ruthlessly or risk having them invalidated. You really don't want to deal with that kind of grief.
2) Do not copy *anything* except the mounting points and other functional bits that are required for interoperability, and are thus not covered by copyright (arguably at least). Meanwhile, many consumer casemods, these included, appear to simply be the exact same part with a different color and finish, and are thus a clear copyright violation begging to be shot down.
3) Don't violate any patents. Honestly, unless they're using some sort of new and clever mounting clasp you really shouldn't have to worry about that with some inert parts for a casemod.
Re: (Score:2)
While you may be right in every point you make here, both Sony and you still seem to miss the point. Few people buy game consoles based on spec alone. Their fellow gamers should have the same console, and they have to be cool. Look at all the gaming chairs, the gaming mice and keyboards, the gaming case mods. They may not represent or match your style preferences, but they definitely represent some style, which is held in high esteem in the gamer community.
Sony may have every right to whine about their IP a
Re: (Score:3)
2) Do not copy *anything* except the mounting points and other functional bits that are required for interoperability, and are thus not covered by copyright (arguably at least). Meanwhile, many consumer casemods, these included, appear to simply be the exact same part with a different color and finish, and are thus a clear copyright violation begging to be shot down.
IIRC, a design patent would cover the item's appearance, not a copyright. But yes, you are correct - don't just copy and change teh color or else you will be at risk of a lawsuit.
Re: idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
A copyright could apply to some aspects of the appearance, but it means dealing with the utility doctrine and the question of severability (the copyrightable part must be physically or conceptually 'severable' from the functional part) which basically works out to which side does the judge favor and will come up with some BS to support. It's about the fuzziest thing in copyright law.
An easy example would be if you had a piece of silverware that had a little bas-relief figure sculpted on the otherwise flat part of the handle. It's easy to see how the figure, while attached to the rest of the utensil, isn't really a part of the utilitarian aspects.
In this case, I've never looked at a PS5 close up, but if a panel had a decorative pattern molded into it which was creative enough to be copyrightable -- maybe teeny tiny moldings of Polygon Man doing stuff -- that could be infringed upon if copied.
Re: (Score:2)
A copyright could apply to some aspects of the appearance, but it means dealing with the utility doctrine and the question of severability (the copyrightable part must be physically or conceptually 'severable' from the functional part) which basically works out to which side does the judge favor and will come up with some BS to support. It's about the fuzziest thing in copyright law.
An easy example would be if you had a piece of silverware that had a little bas-relief figure sculpted on the otherwise flat part of the handle. It's easy to see how the figure, while attached to the rest of the utensil, isn't really a part of the utilitarian aspects.
In this case, I've never looked at a PS5 close up, but if a panel had a decorative pattern molded into it which was creative enough to be copyrightable -- maybe teeny tiny moldings of Polygon Man doing stuff -- that could be infringed upon if copied.
Good points. I was thinking it might be unique enough to qualify for a design patent, with logos on it trademarked.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that anything more sophisticated than a rectilinear "beige box" case is a purely cosmetic component anyway, I think the design is likely safe from the utility doctrine.
Just as there are many distinctive silverware designs guarded by their designers - not just an embossed logo, but wild biomorphic designs that go for many $100s for a set, despite being unadorned stainless steel. Just because a sculpture is functional, doesn't make it stop being a copyright-protected sculpture.
Not a guarantee of
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that anything more sophisticated than a rectilinear "beige box" case is a purely cosmetic component anyway, I think the design is likely safe from the utility doctrine.
I don't know about that. The original Macintosh, as well as the first iMac and several of their minitowers had parts of the case that functioned as handles (and for the minitowers, feet). I'm sure that there are many other examples.
Just because a sculpture is functional, doesn't make it stop being a copyright-protected sculpture.
That is exactly wrong. The utility doctrine in copyright is meant to ensure that you cannot use a copyright as a substitute for a utility patent. If a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work is in some respect functional, the copyright cannot include the functional aspects. I
Re: (Score:2)
>. The utility doctrine in copyright is meant to ensure that you cannot use a copyright as a substitute for a utility patent.
Right, which means that you can't use copyright to protect the functional features of a fork (handle on this end, cluster of tines on the other), but you *can* protect the specific, non-functional *design* of those functional features. E.g. you can't stop someone from putting a handle in the same place on their fork, maybe even with the same basic shape (that much is arguably func
Re: (Score:2)
The only idiot here it's you.
Let's be clear: the fuc*ing plates are IDENTICAL to what you would expect from mobile phone cases.
So, if they would have fought Sony in a country that really defends competition instead of monopoly and whose Justice look for "facts and truth" instead of "belivings" (that's why you can easy buy a shocking, all-eyes illegal, case) then they would have sued Sony instead of stop selling those products.
Re: (Score:2)
They're baiting Sony.
Because a few hours later, they announced new plates.
https://www.theverge.com/22733... [theverge.com]
This one avoids using any of the Sony trademarks and even looks different from the original Sony ones
Sony's fighting a losing battle here. Microsoft made replaceable plates for the Xbox360 and while some licensed it, there were plenty more unlicensed designs to skin your Xbox with.
And plenty of people make unlicensed replacement plastics for everything - just take the old case off and put on the new on
Now we throw prior art out? (Score:2)
Be realistic (Score:3)
My impression is that Sony has applied intellectual property rights over a circle, triangle, x, and square.
That's like saying no trademarks are valid because they contain lines.
Come on. None of those elements are trademarkable by themselves, but very obviously together in a specific pattern they are tied in most people's minds with the Sony Playstation.
Sony has to fight this stuff of all the trade-marked aspects will no longer be protected.
Yeah Sony is going to sell their own faceplates, doens't make it r
Re: (Score:3)
Neither trademarks nor design patents require 'innovation', they just need to be distinctive in the particular area(s) of commerce to which they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's incorrect. Design patents require novelty (i.e. that it's never been done before, either exactly, or with variations slight enough that they wouldn't matter... there's a test) just as utility patents do.
Trademarks though, they don't require novelty or originality. It's totally okay for a trademark to be shamelessly copied from somewhere else, without permission, so long as there isn't confusion, dilution, etc. (I recall that in the late 70s early 80s there was a Japanese clothing brand, and an Ame
Re: (Score:2)
If people look at the design and assume it was made by Sony for the PS5 then they have a Trademark and/or Design Patent case that they could easily win ...
who buys this shit? (Score:3, Funny)
Sony need to give their consumers choice (Score:2)
I really wish Sony _would_ release first-party replacement panels. Then perhaps most people wouldn't need to rely on third parties like Dbrand to have a console that garishly contrasts with every other device in their home media space.
It's obvious they can do it. I mean, they can't use an excuse like microchip shortage to explain lack of supply.
Paint your own (Score:2)
Don't be lazy, get some plasti-dip or truck bed liner or whatever in a can from the hardware store and spray your own case bits. Degrease them before painting.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
PlayStation Family Mark
Ok, sure. They shouldn't be using that.
Any faceplates that take the form of our client's PSS product configuration, or any similar configuration
This part I don't get. Are cell phone cases infringing, since they "take the form" of the product they attach to?
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes.
Several companies have distinctive product designs which are covered by "design Patents". If I understand it, despite the name, these seem more akin to trademarks than patents. An obvious example is the iconic shape of the Coca Cola bottle. But electronics manufacturers will also often produce a distinctive shape for branding purposes.
This only applies to ornamentation though. Not functional features. So I guess DBrand are going to argue that the shape is functional, since it needs to fit a PS5. A
Re: Hmm (Score:2)
Are cell phone cases infringing, since they "take the form" of the product they attach to?
Usually no, because the outside isn't the same form, and even if it was you could most likely argue that the added thickness is enough of a change. If you were talking about being able to replace the actual cellphone body with a custom one, as opposed to wrapping a new shell over the existing one, then it would be a better comparison and have the same issues with design patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Apple's infamous rounded corners patent?
Cases are okay because they add bulk and have their own design language and aesthetic. Just replicating exactly the shape of plastic panels is more like pattern parts for cars. Parts made to be exactly the same shape as the manufacturer's original.
In terms of design patent infringement and copyright infringement, it depends how functional the design is vs. aesthetic, and how much of the overall product design it contributes. A door panel the same shape as the
Dear Sony.... (Score:2)
Before suing other companies for making replacement plates because you intend to sell your own, maybe you should work on ramping up production of the PS5 to actually meet demand.
Sincerely, Everyone.
The endgame is better cladding options for a PS5.. (Score:1)
Poisoning the well? (Score:2)
Perhaps this is what Dbrand wanted to happen ... (Score:2)
They wrote “Go ahead, sue us.” on their website (referring to Sony). Were they actually trying to get sued by Sony, hoping for some free publicity? Their statement on Reddit seems to be aimed at the "Edgelord" demographic:
Instead of answering it, let’s get to the point: we've elected to submit to the terrorists' demands for now.
While we strongly believe in the consumer's right to customize and modify their hardware with aftermarket components, your Darkplates are now a collector's item. You know what they say - you either die a Darkplates owner, or you live long enough to see yourself become the scalper.
In closing, fuck you and especially fuck Sony. Talk soon.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dbran... [reddit.com]
trolls gonna troll (Score:2)
You there! (Score:2)
Put down that can of matte black spray paint and step away from the Playstation!