RSS
Twitter
Finland Thinks Russia Violated Its Design Right With Military Camouflage
from the camouflage-wears-you dept
Apparently, intellectual property issues can show up even in the middle of a warzone. It seems that some Finnish officials, reviewing images and videos of the Russian invasion of Georgia earlier this year were somewhat upset to note that Russian military uniforms appeared to have copied Finnish military camouflage design -- which, yes, the Finnish government has legally protected in Europe (found via Open IT Strategies). Finland has decided not to pursue the issue, and Russian officials deny the copying, but it still shows how weird a world we live in when governments are using intellectual property rights to try to protect military camouflage designs.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
The US Marine Corps does hold a copyright on their digital camouflage pattern. Admittedly, the Marine Corps Emblem is found throughout the pattern, but still....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nope
The US government cannot copyright anything created using public money, that would include camo...prove me wrong and show me a copyright for the design...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nope
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ULwQAAAAEBAJ&dq=camouflage+marine
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Nope
sorry read this as patent not copyright - my bust.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
But it might be patented...
See U.S. patent 6,805,957.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Finland is wrong
The Russians camo pattern has vodka bottles embedded throughout the camouflage.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Although I was incorrect (copyright vs patent) it still constitutes intellectual property, does it not?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Silly borshch. Meat Solyanka is for kids.
It was probably a superior design.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hahaha
Soon after, Finland went to war with Russia over the design. No shots were fired, however. The camouflage was so good, neither nation could see the other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hahaha
On second note, both sides, confused, caused total casualties weakening both sides strengths by 100%. Friendly frag = 98% total deaths.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hahaha
So, any suit would have failed anyway since no one could see the evidence.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Business idea
Finnish army should try selling tshirts with this design to supplement their income :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Finland has a military?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
USMC
As a former marine I can attest to the camo being protected. Im not going to argue semantics ie( copyrighted patented ect). But I can attest to every Item sold with the pattern haveing a sticker on it saying somthing to the effect "Pattern copyright USMC"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Yes, and they kicked the Soviets ass in WWII. Full of awesome and win.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Where do you morons come from anyway?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Them and what army?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
When I was a teen, I was in the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. In those days, cadets would more often than not wear combat uniforms, as the solid olive green uniforms were easily purchased and manufactured even for the public.
Since the older combat uniforms were replaced with the IP law protected CADPAT design, most cadet corps now tend to simply drill around a lot in their dress uniforms. As older, used CADPAT uniforms turn up in surplus stores, things may change back to how it used to be, but given that uniforms for cadets have to be the same as those used by the Canadian Forces, the possibility of independently manufacturing and selling CATPATs is nil, due to the protection around the design.
So seeing this isn't surprising at all for me, or likely any other Canadian with cadets experience.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
camo
First of, this is neither copyright (which, by the way costs nothing and comes into existence at the moment your creation has fixed form) nor patent (used to protect inventions, very expensive and requires novelty, inventiveness and utility, none of which camo has). It is 'design' protection, a right which doesn't exist in US law except for the rather useless (to those who need immediate and inexpensive design protection) 'design patent', that has hardly any overlap in use or structure to the European design right, which this is about. IP isn't semantics, it's the last hold of the western world on the global economy. It is our 'savior' and our damnation. Might be good if people understood it a bit more. Otherwise, charming story. You go Finland.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
camo
Afterthought: This is an EC right. Finland probably didn't register it under Russian law, so, unless Russia invades wearing said duds, no infringement. It's territorial this stuff. Sorry Finland.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment