Comments on: New vehicle patent – old vehicle: Saab 9-6x

By: wilfried

wilfried — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:20:38 +0000

How can a design be patented if 50% of it is clearly made by someone else ?
Doesn’t make much sense.
… except when Saab is being sold by GM at the Japs !
These picts not only recall the tribeca, it shares clearly some design clues with the rather ugly Ford Kuga.

By: Eduard(Edusaab)

Eduard(Edusaab) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:30:49 +0000

then I should find it with google maps, jejejeje

regards

By: SaabKen

SaabKen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:47:26 +0000

Eduard,

You must have a Swedish version of “Area 51″ [wink] ……………..

By: Eduard(Edusaab)

Eduard(Edusaab) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:09:56 +0000

Now the big question!!

Where is this prototype??, it sounds stupid, I know, everybody will say………. in trollhattan!!! but, they have any garage to place those prototypes?? any place where someone like us, will stay an entire week looking cars and crying of what we lost??

It will be interesting to see that place.

regards

By: turbin

turbin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:22:13 +0000

Eggs, as I said above FHI has already used the features but maybe not ‘freely’. The Saab design work was likely handed over as part of the divorce and as Sportmode suggests, there were some loose ends to tie-up.

By: eggsngrits

eggsngrits — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:17:12 +0000

My thoughts were along the same lines as Sport Mode. Just staking claim to the design features that GM put in play rather than FHI being able to use them freely.

Of course, the better rumor is that Saabaru lives!

Very interesting detective work, great job EduSaab!

I’m going to have to do some searching of my own….

By: Sport Mode

Sport Mode — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:34:08 +0000

I think it’s about a little housekeeping- perhaps something they should have done some time ago but didn’t, and are now doing so for covering themselves.

Alternatively, it could be in relation to the redesign of the Tribeca- it took on a lot more Saaby features after going under the knife. Could even be a “clarification” of sorts as part of GM having divested itself of the stake in FHI- tying up a loose end so to speak. I wouldn’t be surprised if things like that happen frequently…sometimes divorces get messy.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:57:43 +0000

They definitely should have kept the Subaru link. Those brands would work well together. You can’t tell me this wouldn’t have been better than the Saablazer.

By: turbin

turbin — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:54:26 +0000

Bernard said: “The rear especially looks just like the Subaru it’s derived from.”

Ahh Bernard, the rear looks like the current Tribeca. If you look back to the first Tribeca you might recall how ugly it was and how poorly it was received. Luckily for Subaru, GM sold it’s stake in FHI and Subaru was able to take all the 9-6 design work and hastily change some of the minor details to use for a major Tribeca refresh in the next model year. SO the Tribeca was derived (front and rear) from the more tasteful (relative term) Saab 9-6!

By: saabyurk

saabyurk — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:47:24 +0000

ctm: “Do you know how well the design is protected?”
I can’t really answer that, I work at a law firm (not a lawyer) where I write utility patent applications (reviewed and signed by a real lawyer), but I’ve never dealt with design patents. I’ve often wondered myself though.
You will notice, however, in the U.S. Patent, a list of references cited which are references the examiner thought were closest to the Saab patent, but which the Saab patent is considered not to infringe. The references listed are design patents D479491, D505890, D508436, D510543, D533809, D538710, and D570736. Interestingly, these are all Toyota patents except for one Volkswagen and one Honda patent.