Originally Posted by uTMY

@Specc

http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/...nger-paper.pdf

It would appear that once again your assertion is baseless.

The RCD is far more similar to the USA Design Patent in terms of process and protection than it is to copyright, differing in only one major category and several smaller ones and whilst I agree it may overlap with the subject matter of copyright/trademarks the major difference to copyright is RCD MANDATES a registration in order to achieve a limited monopoly whereas copyright is IMPLICIT without registration.

rgds

This analysis started with the question of why US design patents and
RCD were used so differently. In the past chapters, we have come
across a number of issues that contribute to an answer.
The most significant finding relates to the concept of design. The RCD
definition is very broad and covers ‘almost everything’: from products
and packaging to parts of complex products, get-ups and computer
interfaces. Even typographic typefaces. RCD can also be used for
graphical symbols, making them an additional tool for branding
(overlap with trademarks). Furthermore, a RCD can be used as ‘standalone’.
This wider range of possible uses, as compared to the US
design patents, seems to be confirmed by filing figures.
I do not consider the differences in the definition of US novelty and
non-obviousness and RCD novelty and individual character as an
important element for answering our initial question.
What is important, according to OHIM users, is the fact that applying
for a RCD is very straightforward: Less strict drawing requirements,
cheaper fees (– 70%) and significantly quicker prosecution (8 weeks
compared to 2 years) as compared to a US design patent.
The explanation for this is that the novelty examination is not carried
out during prosecution. If companies consider a RCD infringes their
prior art, they request OHIM to declare a RCD invalid. Four years of
experience show that this mechanism works: Only 400 requests have
been received and in two thirds out of them the RCD was cancelled.
Given the volume of RCD, these 400 requests represent only a very
little proportion (less than 0.3%). Invalidity requests at OHIM may also
be a first option in order to avoid more expensive court proceedings.
The longer duration of a RCD as compared to the US design patent
(up to 25 years versus 14 years) does in my opinion not play an
important role when evaluating the differences in filing figures.
The possibility of monitoring and preventing importation of infringing
goods by the European Customs Authorities is a clear advantage of
the RCD as compared to the US design patents, where this possibility
only exists for trademarks and trade names, but not for design rights.
I would conclude by saying that the US design patent and the RCD
are quite different IP tools. Sharing the same root of product shape
protection, the US design patent is closer to the ‘more serious’ world of
patents and products, whereas the RCD takes on board elements of
the ‘gay’ world of creation, design and branding.

Originally Posted by Dave999

So is this good or bad for nokia stock?

Originally Posted by switch-hitter

But not everyone's convinced:
“We believe that the recent rise in the stock may have been driven by what we would characterize as an overly optimistic interpretation of initial Lumia sales commentary,”

It's going to be interesting to see what the Q4 sales figures really are.

Originally Posted by specc

Apple vs Nokia the last 6 months.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=AAPL...=l&p=&a=&c=nok

Originally Posted by gerbick

It'll only get worse after Q4 sales are announced and of course into 2013.