Anyone have a good mutual NDA they can share?

ies, not the usual master-slave boilerplate bs.

No one asks you to carry "billions" of dollars of insurance. They may ask for millions of insurance (I was), but I doubt any insurance company would issue a billion dollar policy liability policy. If you are a company that might run into such a case, you likely would be better off self insuring.

ns

Really? The things that have been copyright protected are smaller details than that. The issue of confusing one brand with another would be a part o f trademark law, not copyright.

Just as you can't copyright a title, you can't copyright a switch and label . But put enough switches, jacks, indicators and labels together and you h ave a copyrightable look and feel to an instrument. It doesn't have to be pixels on a screen to be copyrighted.

Nothing on the layout/component situation on that cable-tester box has "secondary meaning" as far as I can tell, it's all functional, so "trade dress" would seem difficult. it's a box. with knobs and jacks and buttons and lights.

There are many brands of e.g. microwave ovens whose control panels all seem pretty similar maybe even some near-identical to each other, has any manufacturer ever sued another over the layout of a microwave oven control panel?

The standard of infringing "look and feel" seems strict from the few cases I could find like:

"The court noted that 'if one has to squint to find distinctions only at a granular level, then the works are likely to be substantially similar.'"

You definitely don't have to look at those two boxes at a "granular level" to see they're not the same product, despite being functionally almost identical probably. All the non-functional elements like the color scheme and logo are different.

They probably didn't even file for any of this stuff. It doesn't seem like a slam-dunk case by any means, the original manufacturer hasn't tried to sue over it. Would be a big risk I think, particularly cuz one thing liberal and conservative court justices seem to agree on is that if your IP-lawsuit gets dismissed as frivolous you really take the shaft. doubtful any legal firm would want to take it on there's no money in this one.

Behrigner has been sued successfully one time I think when they lifted source code for a digital delay or something and it was proved their product's binary was the same, that was a slam-dunk.

Looks like you may have some good information and samples coming.

I have one for our company too if you want it.

Our NDA for engineers only or contractors basically just says that you won't tell our secrets to competing companies.

Nothing that gives us the IP for anything they do on their own time and also NO no-compete clause.

I hate No-Competes so none of that nonsense.

boB

ions

nd

of

ils than that. The issue of confusing one brand with another would be a pa rt of trademark law, not copyright.

abel. But put enough switches, jacks, indicators and labels together and y ou have a copyrightable look and feel to an instrument. It doesn't have to be pixels on a screen to be copyrighted.

You have failed to appreciate your own reference. Reread the very first se ntence and you will see we are talking about two different things. Later t hey address copyright.

Again, you seem to be confusing the issues involved in copyright with the i ssues in trademark. It isn't about looking enough like the competitor so y our brand is distinct, it is about copying the elements that constitute "pr otectable expression". The second paragraph in this reference described th e "protectable expression" which is very analogous to the copied elements i n these designs. "number and configuration of playing pieces" which is ana logous to the number and configuration of controls, indicators and connecto rs. "size of the playing field" which is analogous to the size and shape o f the box, etc., etc...

Most likely because of the cost of such a suit and the distraction it would have presented more than anything else. That could have prevented them fr om a mounting a defense in the suit by the infringing competitor regarding the remarks in the online forum, but they decided to take a stand.

Frivolous is not the same thing as losing. Clearly in this case there was copying. The only issue was whether it constitutes copyright infringement. Everything else you said is just your opinion which has much less value t han this law suit might have.