For 2011 we have a “catsuit” in our women’s SKI line. Now surely a catsuit is not new, but we felt it was time to do one (we had done up some designs for 2 seasons and never got to them). Should someone have the patent on the CATSUIT? (and maybe this is not even a good example …but)

GOVERNMENT:
As for Government, while I do not work there (though it seems like you are quite close) I do know this…dysfunction is the order of the day….if it were private industry it would fail. (and who would be there to “bail it out”) While you offer criticism of many points you do not offer fact, only opinion…namely yours! Frankly as a LOBBYIST you are part of the problem with government not the solution…
I am not sure (my opinion) that it is such a good thing that people keep re-introducing bills that are not accepted…sometimes there might be a reason! As for the Senator from NY. I promise you that his little “stand” he took over the jobs upstate was about “camera time” and nothing more. He fought to preserve 100 jobs in a company yet is looking to remove tariffs on imports that would effect 1000’s of jobs? Why, because Adidas and the NBA have name recognition and make for good PRESS. That is called posturing and it is what our elected politicians do FAR too much of. The Government spent a YEAR paying for a study that said MY BUSINESS and others like it do not exist anymore, and they should remove tariffs on imported products, products that I make in the USA. The GOVERNMENT should be calling me and thanking me for the EVERYDAY struggle that is the daily grind of a small business….the fact that our company still cares to make product in the USA and EXPORT it around the world. The Business of America is Small Business….except to the government. What our company (and many others like us) get from the government is a kick in the teeth, a poke in the eye and a fleecing (and I am not talking sheep subsidies) So Much for a little “Government Rant”.

(for more about government trade issues and CHINA see this NYT article on Currency)

GOING TO COURT is for the deep pocketed:
In the past 2 years we have had to DEFEND our Trademark from: 1. a large corporation that felt we were infringing upon theirs (which we were not as we were senior users and had a registered mark, a different product line, sold thru different channels and were found at NONE of the same retail locations)….a series of letters from our lawyers put an end to that. 2. a Canadian company that not once but TWICE mimicked our trademark with the distinct purpose of causing confusion in the marketplace. (they produce goods in the same “product” line, sell thru the same channels, and sell to many of the same retailers). Neither case went to court for various reasons. The first cost us over $6500 to resolve (just letters and research) the second has cost over $15,000 and counting.
Neither of those made it to court, the second instance had merit but it costs over $75,000 just to get into court for trademark issues and much more once you are there and there is NOT always a positive outcome…

TRADEMARKS and DESIGN:
Burberry and Coach sued over TRADEMARKS, true, and while there are differences between trademarks and patents, BOTH companies have “trademarked” logos that have become part of their product DESIGN. (the CC logo pattern is both a trademark LOGO and a design of the product when it appears as an overall print….and that is what the basis of the suit is….trademarked DESIGN. Burberry has TRADEMARKED a designed PLAID. It is NOT a logo but actually a weave/pattern of color and fabric that has become synonymous with their name….just as Adidas has won lawsuits over people using the 3 stripe design which they claim is theirs…In one of the cases they have been monitoring this for 4 years…do you know what kind of money we are talking about? The kind that LARGE corporations (or the government) have to spend….if they need to or not.

I believe that sometimes our elected officials are well intended in seeking legislation, that does not mean they KNOW anything about what they are doing. Additionally much of that legislation is often written by aides that ALSO know little about the industry that they are trying to legislate…LASTLY it is lobbyists and the LARGE corporations that hire them that most often have the ears of these legislators and aides and THEY often have a “heavy hand” in directing the outcome….(I vaguely remember your reference to HEALTH CARE).

There are no shortage of issues surrounding the fashion industry and government…this should NOT be one of them…it would be nice for once to get some help and this is NOT it.

I will never understand your point of view…Please, please, please, do your research and understand what goes on in DC before you start opinionating. It doesn’t help the debate when people are ill informed.

I could say the same to you. You could follow the internal links I left to learn more about the unintended consequences of this bill and how many people it would leave unemployed and how many independent designers it would put out of business -the very ones it’s designed to protect- but you chose to opine before doing the homework you exhort of us. I’ll save you a scroll, the links are here:

Unfortunately, 90% of what’s left of the domestic apparel industry will be out of business, no matter how stringent one’s ethical standards are. DPPA amounts to legislating a situation astroturfing monopolists can only dream of. It supports DVF who copies other designers at the expense of emerging talent like most of you.

I welcome a well thought response that proposes to resolve the issues we’ve been discussing at length over the past three years. Form a rebuttal to those if you will. You won’t understand our point of view until you read it. The only question is whether you care to.

No wonder there’s “inside the beltway” and “outside the beltway.” Both sides perpetuate that situation!

I can’t speak for you sitting inside the beltway but is it possible you’re sitting in your own echo chamber? If what we say is so ludicrous that you haven’t read the content of our objections and addressed them, then I don’t understand why it merits a comment.

ALL: This person left no less than four comments that I combined into one. Make that three, I didn’t copy/paste the personal attack she directed at one of the commentors. I don’t publish those. That makes me a little salty.

Mark Miller…do you have any idea how many members introduce bills that remove tariffs from certain items? You may think that Charles Schumer is not that bright, but his practice of introducing a bill to remove tariffs is actually VERY common among all members of Congress. Every year, they all introduce legislation to remove tariffs on the items produced in their districts. I’m continually amazed at how little people understand the day to day operations of Washington, let along their poor understanding of what’s happening with the big issues, such as health care.

and finally, also for Mark Milller, Coach and Burberry sue pirates for trademark infringement, not design infringement. And Schumer is one of the architects of immigration reform, Could be why he cares about off-shoring of jobs. Where does it stand now? Nowhere, along with most everything else in Congress.

Please, please, please, do your research and understand what goes on in DC before you start opinionating. It doesn’t help the debate when people are ill informed.

No wonder there’s “inside the beltway” and “outside the beltway.” Both sides perpetuate that situation! urghh

Again, this law only protects designers who have money, elite socialite designers like Diane Von Furstenberg, not independents like she claims and has herself knocked off. Trying to capitalize on public sympathy (protecting David from Goliath) to score a big win for mega-brands like herself -and at the expense of those she claims to helping- strikes me as poor taste. DPPA would virtually eliminate competition. The big brands would become more powerful and the range of clothing options would plummet.

Meanwhile on the legal front this month both Coach and Burbery have sued retailers for selling FAKES…. http://us.fashionmag.com/news-90906-Burberry-accuses-TJX-of-selling-fakes

Ideas, illustrations, submits etc, albeit may have the benefit of an immediate copyright, but the opportunists with the guts, the savvy or the lack of scruples will find a way to take advantage. So it is what it is. Sometimes we hope that the creation of laws will serve as guidelines and boundaries as to how to conduct ourselves lawfully. (An ideal that the concept for a law could be formulated, into a system of rules as what and how a thing could be protected).

Yes, I can pay for coverage, etc, for internet security — although I was not making a point against nor debating this, just making point to an instance of how ideas are commandeered.

It seems, given what all can be hacked into, even just as idle vandalism, that payment nor law guarantees that trust cannot or will not be broken. But of course, if motivated and can, we pay the piper, make a better law, or both.

Excuse my shorthand speak, but this is my meaning…

“today I come away with; fashion isn’t serious, but business is…”

Fashion isn’t serious (imho) — no matter how serious I am — thorough, efficient, honorable, reliable, honest, fun,pleasurable etc.–;

but the business of fashion is deadly serious; to be concerned with copywrites, security – internet or otherwise -etc, etc, etc, innocent mistakes can be lethal.

Btw, I design and do production, tech packs and sample follow through, and sourcing, in a freelance position. in addition to any personal design endeavors of my own for myself. I am definitely tapped into the grid and have a reasonable footprint in it. I am not speaking in any way shape or form against anyone out there or here on this site. How could I? Why would I?
But Please forgive any misspeak on my part that would suggest a thing, that is not the case.

My overriding point of my submit (poorly relayed), was to remark: that though there are many reasons to protect design ideas or production strategies, the complexity to do so may strangle the pleasure out of what those of us consider our work, as the business of our bliss.

Again, respectfully to all and best regards,
Camille