The article suggests the reason for a patent is national security, that is to prevent "unauthorized use", say by North Koreans dressing attacking forces to confuse the southerners. I didn't think a southern law would restrain the northerners copying, if they really wanted to try to confuse an enemy, even at the risk of confusing their own side. Miracles will never cease.
Against Monopoly
defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Southj Korean Army applies for a patent on ithe pattern of its uniform material
Screwball uses of the patent and copyright system are occurring with increasing frequency both at home and abroad. Here is today's link here. The South Korean Army has applied for a patent on "the camouflage pattern on its newly developed combat fatigue, which would ban unauthorized use and sales of the same-patterned civilian attires and accessories. The military has been developing the new combat uniform since 2008. It will be distributed from next July to replace the current uniform within three years." The army with its political clout in the South has every reason to believe the patent will be granted.
[Posted at 11/10/2010 07:40 AM by John Bennett on Intellectual Property 
comments(1)]
Comments
I have a few legal and practical concerns about the possibility of patents on clothing patterns, even for combat fatigues. This kind of patent would likely raise numerous questions and difficulties. For instance, if you can patent Army clothing patterns, then you can easily make an argument for patenting costumes, and potentially other kinds of clothing. Since clothes don't even receive copyright protection, this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Looks like a slippery slope, i.e., more trouble down the road.
[Comment at 11/16/2010 12:52 PM by patent litigation]
Submit Comment
Most Recent Comments
A Texas Tale of Intellectual Property Litigation (A Watering Hole Patent Trolls) Aunque suena insignificante, los números son alarmantes y nos demuestran que no es tan mínimo como
at 06/29/2022 08:48 AM by Abogado de Accidente de Carro en Huntington Park
at 11/27/2021 05:53 PM by Nobody
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous