Phew, that took forever to get through. I have some points to make.
Patents and Copyright aren't really for the same purpose. Patents were actually made to ENCOURAGE sharing of ideas. Before patents, companies that developed (lets take the pharmaceuticals for example) a new drug would keep the design of that new drug as a secret. NOONE would benefit from that, except that company. People wouldn't be learning from other's research because everyone would be keeping it hidden. What patents allow is for the new research, the new discovery whatever, to be made public knowledge, then people can research and work on it and develop it. But it protects the original work in that if someone wanted to sell that product even in a slightly modified way, they'd have to pay a royalty. Then the patent runs out, and people can make the knock offs at competitive prices. That pharmaceutical company that is complaining about not being able to persue those new drugs because of patents is lying. What they're saying is that its a waste of time to persue it because if they found a marketable product there, they'd have to pay royalties to the original company, and it's more worthwhile (profit wise) to wait around till the patents wears off. Patents do not prevent people from copying the idea, it just prevents them from selling it as their own, and it prevents people from locking up new knowledge in the form of tradesecrets (VERY VERY bad for development of science/technology).
As for copyrights, musical notes can't be copyrighted (teh last I heard). Lyrics can be copyrigthed, but not the notes of a song. I think the judgement had to do with musical notes not actually being a language. That's why people can use the same tunes and not have to pay. If they actually SAMPLE the song (literally take the music straight from the record) there are some rules on the length that can be used before royalties, but I think that's more something the industry came up with, and may not be held by copyright law... Not sure about that. Same as everyone has been saying about ideas. You hear all the time about someone stealing someone's idea for a movie. Well, unless there is significant similarities between two products (must have some sort of written account for it, not just talked about) such as names, specific plot details, specific plot timeline, etc. then there may be a case, but if you had an idea about a "Showgirl (brulesque??) singer/prostitute, who is dying of TB, and is wooed by a writer, and then she tragically dies. Oh, and it's a musical". Even if it went on to INSPIRE Moulin Rouge, that person has no legal argument (I'm pretty sure) for royalties for offering the idea and inspiration. Though it would be bad publicity wise if it got around that the company is "ripping off" someone's ideas, so often they will compensate the original idea, though not legally bound to do so.
So, with regards to fashion... Yes, the exact model can be protected, but that includes stitching technique and material. Plus the Label is protected as a trademark.
Do I care? Not really. I wouldn't be able to afford a designer anyway, and if someone can make his product for hundreds and hundreds of dollars cheaper, it means the original prices were inflated anyway, and that i'm REALLY buying the name and not the clothes. People who want a good cut, good craftmanship, good material, good wear etc. will pay more for it, because they know the cost of good work. Someone who wants something that looks stylish on the surface, who will only wear it a couple seasons (so doesn't care really about how long it will last), and isn't going to be judged for the material, or workmanship by their peers, can get the "inspired but cheaper" looks. They shouldn't have to pay for all the rest, when all they want is the surface sheen.
Anyway, not a lot of people go for direct knock offs with things that bare the names "Gocci", and "Calvin Klain" (to avoid trademark laws). hehe. BUt then those people probably couldn't afford Gucci and Calvin Klein in the first place, so it's not like the knock offs are stealing business. It's just allowing people to dress how they like on either sides of the financial gap.
Anyway. It keeps designers on their toes, having to keep competitive, and earn the prices they attach to their labels.
Patents and Copyright aren't really for the same purpose. Patents were actually made to ENCOURAGE sharing of ideas. Before patents, companies that developed (lets take the pharmaceuticals for example) a new drug would keep the design of that new drug as a secret. NOONE would benefit from that, except that company. People wouldn't be learning from other's research because everyone would be keeping it hidden. What patents allow is for the new research, the new discovery whatever, to be made public knowledge, then people can research and work on it and develop it. But it protects the original work in that if someone wanted to sell that product even in a slightly modified way, they'd have to pay a royalty. Then the patent runs out, and people can make the knock offs at competitive prices. That pharmaceutical company that is complaining about not being able to persue those new drugs because of patents is lying. What they're saying is that its a waste of time to persue it because if they found a marketable product there, they'd have to pay royalties to the original company, and it's more worthwhile (profit wise) to wait around till the patents wears off. Patents do not prevent people from copying the idea, it just prevents them from selling it as their own, and it prevents people from locking up new knowledge in the form of tradesecrets (VERY VERY bad for development of science/technology).
As for copyrights, musical notes can't be copyrighted (teh last I heard). Lyrics can be copyrigthed, but not the notes of a song. I think the judgement had to do with musical notes not actually being a language. That's why people can use the same tunes and not have to pay. If they actually SAMPLE the song (literally take the music straight from the record) there are some rules on the length that can be used before royalties, but I think that's more something the industry came up with, and may not be held by copyright law... Not sure about that. Same as everyone has been saying about ideas. You hear all the time about someone stealing someone's idea for a movie. Well, unless there is significant similarities between two products (must have some sort of written account for it, not just talked about) such as names, specific plot details, specific plot timeline, etc. then there may be a case, but if you had an idea about a "Showgirl (brulesque??) singer/prostitute, who is dying of TB, and is wooed by a writer, and then she tragically dies. Oh, and it's a musical". Even if it went on to INSPIRE Moulin Rouge, that person has no legal argument (I'm pretty sure) for royalties for offering the idea and inspiration. Though it would be bad publicity wise if it got around that the company is "ripping off" someone's ideas, so often they will compensate the original idea, though not legally bound to do so.
So, with regards to fashion... Yes, the exact model can be protected, but that includes stitching technique and material. Plus the Label is protected as a trademark.
Do I care? Not really. I wouldn't be able to afford a designer anyway, and if someone can make his product for hundreds and hundreds of dollars cheaper, it means the original prices were inflated anyway, and that i'm REALLY buying the name and not the clothes. People who want a good cut, good craftmanship, good material, good wear etc. will pay more for it, because they know the cost of good work. Someone who wants something that looks stylish on the surface, who will only wear it a couple seasons (so doesn't care really about how long it will last), and isn't going to be judged for the material, or workmanship by their peers, can get the "inspired but cheaper" looks. They shouldn't have to pay for all the rest, when all they want is the surface sheen.
Anyway, not a lot of people go for direct knock offs with things that bare the names "Gocci", and "Calvin Klain" (to avoid trademark laws). hehe. BUt then those people probably couldn't afford Gucci and Calvin Klein in the first place, so it's not like the knock offs are stealing business. It's just allowing people to dress how they like on either sides of the financial gap.
Anyway. It keeps designers on their toes, having to keep competitive, and earn the prices they attach to their labels.
ok, Trend offices/forecast companies ALSO consult ICC.. so, you can understand no? its basically the Trend Offices that do all forecasting and pre-planing for what is going to work and whats not, and of course this includes colour
as softie said, please, do share at the trendspotting section cypresses, looking forward 
) the only difference is the fabric is lacking a bit more now (patterns etc may be a tad better). Does anyone notice this? The garments are not constructed as greatly as say 15 years ago. I think this reflects the public in a way, we are becoming more relaxed, bit more lazy, not as creative, we have machines to think and work for us now, you don’t even need to be able to draw or construct garments to be a designer, you can just express your ideas get others to draw damn charlatans...... maybe I am very wrong feel free to correct me. 
......However I don’t have the choice of purchasing the real thing when it comes to some clothing. I rather buy a beautiful piece of fabric and rub it on my skin, yes im a freak, but I rather make it myself..... am I copier because I cant afford it?
