or
Also kind of looks like the middle finger so, extra good 
What can I say, in many ways I never stopped being 12.
It’s fun mocking Lenovo, but in reality all you really have to do is barely change any dimension just to alter the proportions a bit and then it no longer qualifies as looking the same.
Make the center a little smaller or the outside a little larger, and that makes the openings fatter and that alone changes the look without changing the functionality. Or round the corners. Or do both.
That would make the arms longer and that’s probably a good thing anyway for flex, while probably still not being too much flex and allow the center to tip which would allow the boss to aim off to the side of the actual button on the pcb.
For functionality I do like the single U-shape idea.
I think no design can include the Frame.work name or logo in it, since it’s Framework’s actual trademark and probably no one should use it but them. I suppose since this is a github posted by them they can of course use it, but, it’s a design that is granted an open source license, and they probably can’t actually include their actual logo in it without essentially giving away the rights to their logo.
If they did that, then anyone on Aliexpress could start making a “Framework” laptop tomorrow made out of garbage with the actual logo on it and a screenshot of Linus Tech Tips.
Sure they can, trademarks apply to commercial use. If I were to market a product that include “Framework” stylized the same and/or the Framework logo that would be infringement. This GitHub is a Framework project, ergo it is licensed by Framework. Having a product provided by Framework for free does not release any of their rights to their products or marks.
Possibly, but at the very least, it makes it unclear and a source of constant fights for framework to keep telling people who fork the repo that they must modify that one part before they are allowed to redistribute their own copy or anything made from it. They couldn’t even fork the repo on github because the new copy is immediately publicly visible, which is redistribution.
No, just no. They can release the design using a CC license…much as they are already doing. This is the current license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
but there are more restrictive CC licenses that prohibit commercial use if that is something Framework wants to do. Framework is the owner of the mark, they get to dictate the terms of its use.
The way licensing works is that you can go from more restrictive licensing to less restrictive but generally speaking you can’t go backwards
Despite your strong feelings, I think you are mistaken about how simple it all is.
Look at for example the Firefox source. It is open source software that anyone can copy and redistribute, and the repo does include the logos,
(https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/browser/branding/official)
but the license has to explicitly carve out the exception for the logos, and anyone forking the source has to change the name & logo.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/LICENSE
FW could do the same, but how many people would simply fork the repo without changing anything? Many. Many many many.
Or FW could choose not to, its FW’s mark to do with what they wish. Ultimately, the whole conversation is moot because if FW doesn’t want to use FW marks, then they just won’t use it. All I’m saying is that is possible without abandoning the mark or rights to the mark like you originally suggested. I am not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to know the best decision for FW. I do know it is possible.
Not including their logos is strangely almost exactly like what I suggested in the first place. You have argued exactly zero points, with great confidence.
You suggested that using their logo would be tantamount to losing their trademark. I say otherwise with great confidence. And when I said
I was talking about Mozilla’s redistribution policy, FW could choose not to carve out an exception for their logo/marks.
I think we’ve both killed this dead enough and I at least am done giving you a hard time. Sorry for the grief buddy.
3 Likes
The mid portion looks like a bird’s-eye view of a stylised Enterprise NCC-1701:
Don’t want to get a letter from Paramount’s lawyers next.
Somewhat remotely related video:
Those links don’t work for me. Do you mean the two, when you go to https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk, click on “Word and/or Design Mark Search (Free Form)” and enter “(lenovo)[ON] and (legion)[ALL]” in the search form (without quotes)?
Yeah, those are the ones. Doesn’t seem to have any mention of the design of the O.