Report : ( PS3 Slim Is Real ) Won't Be At E3

[steven787]

StanGable said:

steven787 said:

StanGable said:
Something just clicked to me which should've long time ago since I work with attorneys; A Cease and Desist can only be sent if and I quote

"A cease-and-desist letter is a letter demanding that the recipient refrain from a certain behavior or face legal action. Some types of behaviors that may prompt such letters include:[citation needed]

Harassment by telephone by a collection agency or junk debt buyers
Stalking or other forms of harassment
Property, neighborhood, and boundary disputes
Patent infringement, copyright infringement or trademark infringement
Libel or slander"

In this so called rumor that the source would get the letter of Cease and Desist, charges against them are slim to none, specially since the countries involved have free speech of some sort.. However, being not familiar with Japanese / Taiwanese law I could be wrong. Could any elaborate on the possibility of this being true according to international laws?

If these are internal production photos, than that would be copyright infringement.  If they were smuggled photos, then that couild be a risk of patent infringement (patenting production methods, packaging, etc for an unreleased product.

It's not a free society when you can't run a business due to information being published illegally or proect your secrets.

Not so much my friend. Copyright Infringement only applies if the product itself is being copied and distributed illegally. For example, the most common copyright violation is hosting and sharing illegal MP3s. Although you're right that if they were production photos there's some room for legal action, the photos themselves would need to show parts of the item being photocopied and its funtionality, art boxes such as the PS3 one only hold copyright if the logo is being stamped in a PS3 ripped-off machine (you know, cheap imitations.)

With regards to patent infringment, I will have to read more on it for I'm not quite certain how it would apply to this picture but I know that this type of violation does involve using or selling a patented invention but I'm not sure how this would involve the picture.

If I take a picture of something, the right to distribute that picture that picture belongs to me.  If someone else were to distibute it, they would be violating my copyright.  There are exceptions to this (one instance: if I distribute it widely with out marking it as mine) but if the picture are "internal production photos" they would very likely be protected.  You do not always have to register something to be protected by IP law, though it does help.

If these are photos that were not taken by the manufacturer, then copyright protection covers the box, the screen shots on the box, much of the information contained with in the photos (that was intended to remain private), and any other private printed materials in the images - like taking a picture of a magazine, it is just as illegal as posting a scan.  Companies do not pursue this on released products and probably wouldn't get anywhere in court but as this is an unreleased product, a court may side with them. 

The logos ae definitely protected. Almost anytime a trademark is posted online, a company can ask that it is removed and is almost always sided with; exceptions being where a logo might be a safety concern or legitimate news, private corporate information regarding R&D and/or manufacturing is not legitimate news.

Patents do not just cover single devices or components, they can also cover methods through a series of devices.  This is my weakest argument, but if the manufacturer can compel a judge to rule that these images may compromise a patent , then the judge might rule in the manufacturer's favor.