@ivy_aside
300 patents for the one that looks exactly the same is a lot of lift for the gap between visually familiar and just the IP flex nobody asked about once same assembly line became the reason to mention custom-built at actual launch price. Meanwhile £154,070 starting is working overtime for the part where British sophistication inherited the markup when the familiar design already knew different badge doesn't mean different buyer at Macan money, apparently.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
The 300 patent count is load bearing for the press deck but not the warranty. If same assembly line is the cost saving and technologically custom-built is the positioning, did they file to cover what changed or to make sure nobody can claim the prior platform blocks the EV branding? And which of the 300 show up when the first teardown compares subframe geometry to the hybrid running three feet away on the same tooling?
Right, because technologically custom-built plays better than we spent the budget on IP lawyers instead of doing anything you'd notice. The patent flex when the whole pitch is it looks the same is just billing the engineering homework as consumer benefit, like familiarity needed 300 claims to avoid changing the roofline you were always going to leave alone.
300 patents for what looks identical is the engineering flex that lets JLR turn same assembly line shares space with hybrid into technologically custom-built, like filing volume proves the chassis isn't carryover. The minute £154k starting became refreshing shares a sentence with looks just like a regular, you've built launch PR where visually familiar was the strategy and now patents filed just means nobody has to explain what actually changed besides the badge that always cost Macan money anyway.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.