Art vs. Philosophy

Weininger, Otto. Sex and Character. London: W. Heinemann, 1906

The task of the philosopher differs from that of the artist in one important respect. The one deals in symbols, the other in ideas. Art and philosophy stand to one another as expression and meaning. The artist has breathed in the world to breathe it out again; the philosopher has the world outside him and he has to absorb it. 

There is always something pretentious in theory; and the real meaning — which in a work of art is Nature herself and in a philosophical system is a much condensed generalisation, a thesis going to the root of the matter and proving itself — appears to strike against us harshly, almost offensively. 

Dịch: trích đoạn từ cuốn Giới tính và Tính cách của Otto Weininger, xuất bản năm 1906 tại Luân Đôn, nxb W. Heinemann

Công việc của người triết gia khác với công việc của người nghệ sĩ ở một khía cạnh quan trọng. Một bên thì xử lý trong các biểu tượng, còn một bên thì trong các ý-tưởng. Nghệ thuật và triết học so với nhau như là sự biểu lộ và ý-nghĩa. Người nghệ sĩ đã hít lấy hơi thở của thế giới để bộc lộ thế giới ra ngoài một lần nữa; người triết gia có thế giới bày ra trước anh ta và anh ta phải thẩm thấu thế giới ấy. 

Luôn có một điều gì đó giả tạo trong các thuyết; và ý-nghĩa thật sự - mà ở trong các tác phẩm nghệ thuật thì chính là Tự nhiên và ở trong một hệ thống triết học thì là một sự khái quát cực kỳ cô đọng, một triết luận đi đến tận cùng gốc rễ của vấn đề và tỏ tường chính nó - dội vào chúng ta đầy khắc nghiệt, gần như gây nên một sự xúc phạm.

-|-|2016HN: Drawing & Color Ranges 2

-|-|2016HN: Drawing & Color Ranges

-|-|2018AJ: B&Y Arrangement 

Tragedy

          And yes,
          mah friends,
          we accept the love we think we deserve,
          and that's the beginning and the very end of all the tragedy.

           

Soar

Standards
norms
patterns
values
worthiness
and the like

Oh my goodness

These all lame
are inventions
of the weak.

The strong see
no boundaries.

Too self-respecting
to settle
Too bold to fold
Cats can't be tamed.

Spread thy wings
Soar
into
the
air n
Leave no regrets

.

     

-|-|2017HA: Colors Play

       

Best regime to protect product design under Vietnam Law

^prepared for know-how exchange as of Dec 2017
^already published
^copied below for archive purpose

“Product design” is by no means a recently coined term as its existence can be traced back to the first time a product presented in a special manner was traded. In the most basic sense, the design of a product has to do with its shape or configuration.


Status quo

In this era of innovation and fierce market-based competition, products that bear brand-new, unique designs are vital to business growth. At the same time, the initiators behind many innovative designs find themselves in unfair competition with imitators. Design is undoubtedly a decisive factor in the success of a newly launched product as much as it is one of the first things that catch the consumer’s eye. Yet, since it is linked to the exterior of a new product, design is also vulnerable to copycat imitation.

Under these circumstances, questions inevitably arise. Product design is obviously also a creation of the mind - so how then can intellectual property law reward this kind of human creativity? How does the owner of a product design seek the law's protection for his abstract but valuable property? What options are available for the protection of product design? What is the best regime that the owner of product design can resort to? In many jurisdictions, legislators are on an ongoing quest for a satisfactory answer to such intellectual property issues.

Vietnam is no exception. As a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the country has adopted an additional avenue for the protection of product design through the “industrial design” registration procedure. This was accompanied by relevant fundamental regulations set out in the Intellectual Property Law in 2005, amended in 2009 (“IP Law”).

Despite hopes that this mechanism would be the perfect fit for product design protection, in practice, it has revealed certain insufficiencies. The reality is that companies face tremendous difficulty in protecting their product designs from rivals putting out copycat designs. Such unfair competitors manufacture and sell products with the same or substantially similar designs as the original. Things can become quite complicated and discouraging as these competitors affix their own brand names onto look-alike products so that trademark infringement cannot be found. Meanwhile, bona fide owners of product designs have to deal with the issue of expiration of their industrial design registrations at some point and being left without legal measures with which to challenge alleged design infringement.


The impetus

This article seeks to account for why the seemingly appropriate industrial design regime in Vietnam is inefficient. The article later proposes other options for the protection of product design besides the problematic industrial design regime. After all the primary pros and cons of these proposed alternatives are presented, readers should be able to realize that the best form of protection for product design available under current local legislation still rests on the traditional theory of trademark protection.


Protection of Product Design under Industrial Design Regime

Under the IP Law, industrial design refers to the outer appearance of a product embodied by three-dimensional configurations, lines, colors, or a combination of these elements. A product design that qualifies for industrial design protection must be: (i) novel, (ii) creative, and (iii) industrially applicable. Regardless of these stringent requirements, product design protection via industrial design registration is granted for a maximum of 15 years which already includes the sum of two times renewal.

The owner of a creative product design who is about to be fully paid off after years of nurturing and promoting a product that, through time, becomes profitably promising may be helpless to tackle the barefaced exploiters of his property due to the short-term nature of industrial design protection.

Even when the industrial design protection term is still valid, its enforcement remains burdensome given that infringement will only be found if the copycat product design is identical or substantially identical to the industrial design that was registered prior to the copycat design. Meanwhile, the law leaves open the question of what constitutes substantial identity, and thus the assessment consequently varies and depends largely on the sole discretion and perception of the local enforcers.


Protection of Product Design under Copyright Regime

The IP Law defines copyright as the rights of organizations and individuals to works they own or have created. As such, the types of works copyrightable by law are literary, artistic, and scientific ones. Copyrightable artistic works include, among others, plastic-art works, and works of applied art. Notably, the law grants works of applied art a maximum protection term of 75 years from the date of first publication. Companies, therefore, may seek copyright protection for the creative ornamentation of their product.

Yet when it comes to the enforcement of copyrighted works, local authorities are reluctant to deal with nebulous copyright infringement cases given that the current relevant regulations govern only exact imitations of the original work and not the act of using similar artworks.

Therefore, while it is efficient in terms of time and cost to seek copyright registration for product design, it turns out that enforcement is less advantageous for the owner of product design.


Protection of Product Design under Trademark Regime

Trademark plays a role as the source identifier of goods and/or services provided by an undertaking. By law, as long as a sign satisfies both the availability and distinctiveness criteria, it will be accepted for trademark registration and granted indefinite protection provided that the holder keeps using the registered trademark and pays a renewal fee every 10 years. In addition, the enforcement body now works more efficiently since it has a mechanism for handling third-party acts of using similar trademarks for similar or even dissimilar goods and/or services where applicable.

This perpetual and productive trademark protection system appeals to owners of product designs in Vietnam. That being said, as long as a product design meets the criteria of availability (i.e., it is not identical or similar to prior-established rights) and distinctiveness (either inherently or having acquired distinctiveness through use) of the applied-for goods and/or services, the design will be granted an official trademark registration and will earn ample IP protection from the local authorities.

One might ask - what types of product design (i.e., shape or configuration) possess either inherent or acquired distinctiveness? Fortunately, the law and its guiding regulations address this question.

With respect to the former, Point 39.4 of Circular 01/2007/TT-BKHCN[1] (“Circular No. 01”) provides that figurative sign(s) will be mostly deemed inherently distinctive as long as they do not fall into the following non-distinctive spectra: (i) common figures or geometric figures, such as round, ellipse, triangle, quadrangle, etc., or a simple drawing; a picture or image used merely as a background or ornamental pattern of a product or a product package; (ii) a picture or image that is too tangled or complicated for consumers to easily perceive and memorize its details, eg, a sign that consists of too many combined or overlapping images or lines; (iii) a commonly used picture, image, emblem or symbol; and (iv) a picture or image liable to describe the applied-for products, location and method of manufacture, geographic origin, type, quantity, quality, properties, composition, utility, value or other characteristics of the applied-for products.

If the product shape or configuration bears the above non-distinctive features, it still has a chance of being protected as a trademark provided that it has acquired a source-indicating function through use. The acquired distinctiveness of a product shape or configuration is often established after the passage of years and extensive promotion by the owner to the extent that the consumer eventually perceives it as a source-identifier, which is when the product design acquires the feature as a trademark in its true sense. The evidence needed to prove the acquired distinctiveness of the product design includes, but is not limited to, the time of beginning of the use, present scope and level of use, etc., in which the mark shall be considered in use when the use is made in lawful production, business, commercial, advertising, or marketing activities.

To that end, while the pursuit of trademark protection for a product design appears to be ideal for businesses to invest in and enforce their creative ornamentation of products to the fullest, proving either inherent or acquired distinctiveness remains a practical challenge.


Protection of Product Design under Unfair Competition Regime

The core desire and purpose of the “right to repression of unfair competition” under the IP Law is to protect consumers and businesses against deceptive business practices. From a legal perspective, this regime is an attractive alternative for businesses when avenues for the protection of product design are insufficient or unfeasible (e.g., the enforceability of industrial design and copyright is not effective or the product design is not registrable as a trademark due to the owner's inability to prove required distinctiveness).

While the IP Law does not provide a specific definition of “unfair competition act,” it does provide a list of acts deemed to be “acts of unfair competition.”[2] Accordingly, an act of unfair competition includes using a commercial indication, which, inter alia, includes “designs of packages and/or labels of product” to, among the others, (i) cause confusion as to business entities, business activities or commercial origin of goods or services or (ii) cause confusion as to the origin, production method, utilities, quality, quantity or other characteristics of goods or services; or as to the conditions for the provision of goods or services.

That said, the protection and enforcement of the right to repression of unfair competition as yet only exist in embryonic form.

On the one hand, Article 19.1(b) of Circular No. 11/2015/TT-BKHCN[3] (“Circular No. 11”) details the commercial indications specified in Article 130.2 of the IP Law which cover, among others, “package designs.” In particular, “package designs” are defined as designs and decorations of goods packages, including shapes, patterns, figures, letters, numbers, colors, presentations, blending of colors, arrangements and combination of these elements to create a particular impression or typical feature of goods packages. Accordingly, given this definition, it is arguable that “product designs” encompass “package designs”. Hence, such provision could serve as a valid legal basis for a holder of product design to challenge a third party’s copycat design.

On the other hand, there still exists certain overlap and conflict of provisions under the IP Law and the Law on Competition together with their regulations. The following two government-issued decrees illustrate how legislation may be inconsistent: Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP (“Decree No. 99”) on sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property and Decree No. 71/2014/ND-CP (“Decree No. 71”) regulations of Law on Competition on the imposition of penalties for violations against Law on Competition. Such conflicting and inconsistent legislation not only pose difficulties and ineffectiveness of handling unfair competition cases among different competent authorities but also demonstrate a legal loophole, which allows unfair competitors to be “willing” to pay a low amount of monetary penalties in comparison with the huge benefits to be reaped from unfair competition acts.

To conclude, achieving full and effective protection of a business’s product design remains an issue of concern. While the law attempts to protect human creativity, businesses need to take the lead in exploiting the available legal mechanisms and developing the most suitable strategy for protection of their creative products.


______


[1] Issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology guiding the implementation of the Government’s Decree No. 103/2006/ ND-CP of September 22, 2006, detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of articles of the Law on Intellectual Property regarding industrial property. This Circular will be amended under Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN, which will come into effect from January 15, 2018.


[2] Under Article 3.4 of Law on Competition, “unfair competition” is defined as “competitive practices by an enterprise during the business process which are contrary to general standards of business ethics and which cause or may cause damage to the interests of the State and/or to the legitimate rights and interests of other enterprises or of consumers”


[3] Detailing and guiding a number of articles of the Government’s Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of August 29, 2013, on sanctioning of administrative violations in the field of industrial property.

-|-|2018QN: B&W Play

Words That Touch

Ngày người đến, hãy mang theo một nhành hoa mẫu đơn

https://zingmp3.vn/bai-hat/Ngay-Chua-Giong-Bao-Nguoi-Bat-Tu-OST-Bui-Lan-Huong/ZW9EU0F9.html

***

Nhiều khi em nghĩ là, một đời người, được chạm vào hết thảy những cảm giác rung động như thế này,
là đủ trọn vẹn một kiếp nhân sinh hoa mộng...
ấy mà đợi mãi người chưa tới để cùng chia sẻ 

hiu hiu :))

mà... có từ nào để chỉ cảm giác nhớ nhung người-tình-tương-lai không nhỉ? :)

***

Flipped : Chỉ cần nghe được tim đã đập thình thịch. 

Fairy : Tiểu tinh linh xinh đẹp đáng yêu, tiểu tiên nữ, cô gái xinh đẹp.

Kilig : Dùng để hình dung cảm giác thích một người tới nỗi giống như có hàng ngàn hàng vạn con bướm khẽ bay trong lòng, chỉ cần há miệng sẽ bay hết ra ngoài. 

Redamancy :Một tình yêu trọn vẹn, khi người đó yêu em, em cũng yêu người đó. 

Sobremesa: Sau bữa ăn là thời gian nói chuyện cùng bạn cũ. 

Sinsoledad : Chợt phát hiện ra hạnh phúc luôn nằm trong tay mình. 

Flechazo : Vừa gặp đã yêu. 

Solitude : Buồn tủi hay vui vẻ đều một mình. 

Sokäch : Cảm giác hạnh phúc ngày chủ nhật.

Echo : Nhớ mãi không quên. 

Tiám : Sự lấp lánh trong ánh mắt khi lần đầu gặp ai đó. 

Serendipity : Vẻ đẹp bất ngờ, không hẹn mà gặp. 

Palpitate: Cẩn thận từng li từng tí nhưng lại vội vàng động lòng. 

Shmily : Nhìn xem tôi yêu người nhiều như thế nào. 

Amireux: Trên tình bạn, dưới tình yêu. 

Aurora: Cực quang. 

Milchstraße : Ngân Hà. 

Eternity : Vĩnh hằng. 

Gänseblümchen : Hoa cúc nhỏ. 

Dreamboat : Người yêu lý tưởng, mục tiêu lý tưởng. 

Vergissmeinnicht : Quên tôi đi. 

Frühlingserwachen : Mùa xuân thức tỉnh. 

Famiglistimo : Người em yêu đều bên cạnh em. 

Wabi-sabi : Tìm kiếm điều tốt đẹp bên trong cái không hoàn hảo, chấp nhận sinh tử luân hồi và vẻ đẹp không trọn vẹn. 

Miscedence : Sự tồn tại của em rất quan trọng với người khác. 

Crush : Tình yêu cuồng nhiệt, ngắn ngủi nhưng lại ngượng ngùng. 

Petrichor: Mùi hương của bùn đất sau mưa. 

Komorebi: Ánh nắng xuyên qua kẽ hở giữa lá cây. 

Arrebol : Hào quang ráng chiều. 

Murmure : Tiếng róc rách của dòng suối nhỏ, tiếng xào xạc của lá cây khi gió khẽ thổi. 

l'ivresse: Cảm giác say mê. 

Augenstern: Tôi thích những ngôi sao trong mắt người. 

Gezelligheid: Cảm giác hài lòng, thoải mái, dễ chịu, ấm áp khi ở bên người yêu, gặp lại người bạn cũ xa cách nhiều năm, ánh lửa của lò sưởi vào đêm đông lạnh lẽ. 

Trouvaille : Vì phát hiện ra chuyện tốt đẹp trong cuộc sống mà thấy thỏa mãn. 

Hygge : Không có chuyện khiến em thấy phiền lòng, tận hưởng những thứ nhỏ bé trong cuộc sống. 

Miraitowa: Mãi mãi chờ mong tương lai sáng lạn. 

Gnomeshgh : Người nào đó nguyện ý chia sẻ chuyện thú vị với em. 

Ephémère : Phù dung sớm nở tối tàn, xuất hiện thoáng qua rồi biến mất.