4 ms·

Well, to be fair, one of the main reasons for Asia's growth the last decades is exactly the blatant disregard for patents and copyright. Sure, it may feel unfa

Well, to be fair, one of the main reasons for Asia's growth the last decades is exactly the blatant disregard for patents and copyright. Sure, it may feel unfair to the original creators of the products, but it sure has forced them to continually innovate. I'd actually argue that cloning is a positive (as long as you differentiate it sufficiently, don't clone a BMW and call it a BWV) thing for the world. In my opinion, if you can create a better/cheaper version of something, you should be allowed to. And if it's possible to easily duplicate your product and make it cheaper/better somehow (if it isn't better somehow nobody'll buy the clone), it's a strong sign that the original product/business isn't good enough and doesn't deserve to be the leader.

simonbrown 14y ago
Surely it takes away any incentive of the original producers to innovate if the product is quickly cloned (even under a different name) and sold at close to break even point, leading consumers to buy the cheaper one (and perhaps even wait for it to arrive), preventing the producer from even recouping their R&D costs?
briandear 14y ago
I agree that the copycats who "do it cheaper" do drive innovation at some level, however, the reason they can do it cheaper is that they've invested almost nothing into developing the product, other than reverse-engineering costs. For example, no one was doing a multitouch screen for a consumer mobile device until Apple. In fact, companies such as RIM where declaring the full QWERTY hardware keyboards were the future of smartphones. So Apple took a risk, a huge risk in fact. So when a company like Samsung (or any in their cohort) comes along and puts a touchscreen on a phone, when no one else was doing it before, Samsung effectively benefited from Apple's risk. I'm not arguing that the concept of a touchscreen should be patent-protected, however the specific technology behind should be. Furthermore, part of Samsung's complaint against the injunction is that the iPad design patent is "generic" and should not be subject to protection, yet if it was so generic, then why wasn't anyone else using that design before Apple? Just because it's minimal doesn't mean it's generic. It appears generic because the iPad became so ubiquitous. Coca-Cola bottles are another good example of the logic behind a design patent. The Coca-Cola's classic "Contour" bottle, or "Hobble skirt" bottle, from 1915 was one of the first glass containers ever to be patented based only on its unique shape. In 1916, Coca-Cola debuted the patented bottle which would help distinguish them from competitors. Even today, that bottle is recognized as a "Coke bottle." No one is arguing that bottles should be patent protected, but the specific characteristics that make a bottle unique certainly should be. The Coke bottle is a prime example. Design patents protect that which distinguishes one product from another. If you look at this image: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/galaxy-tab-hands-on/samsung-galaxy-tab-8.jpg http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/gal... The products look almost identical, although the Galaxy pictured is the smaller version than the 10.1. But really.. who in their right mind can say that Samsung just happened to come up with the exact same design as Apple. More importantly, would the neighbor down the street, if she saw them both together, be able to tell them apart? She's likely say, "Oh cool, Apple made a smaller iPad." For more examples of Samsung blatantly ripping off Apple designs, have a look at this: http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg Samsung copied the exact same green for the phone icon as well as positioned it in the exact same default location as the iPhone. The clock icon is a square clock with a round face with a slight change of shading. The Notes/Memo icon is virtually identical expect the Samsung version is slightly zoomed out. The similarities continue through Galaxy products. The web browser icon even (at least a year ago) had a compass on it! I am not a fan of RIM equipment by any stretch, but at least they designed their own icons without ripping off Apple: http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/blackberry-6-home-screen.jpg http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/blackb... Even the Samsung box design was copied from Apple. Samsung box: http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galax... Apple box: http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-unboxing1.jpg http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-... For comparison, here's a Sony box: http://www.taragis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Tablet-S-Box1.jpg http://www.taragis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Table... We, the tech minded can argue differences, but that isn't at issue. Of course a tech person knows the difference between a Samsung Galaxy XYZ123 and an XYZ321, but the average person that sees that Samsung product is going to certainly confuse it with Apple. Arguing that this injunction is somehow stifling innovation is bullshit. Samsung themselves are stiffing their own innovation trying to create a copycat product and riding the Apple gravy train as opposed to inventing something of their own. At least Amazon, Sony, HP, Microsoft are/were attempting to distinguish themselves. I respect the vapor-ware MS Surface far more than the extant Samsung Galaxy simply because at least Microsoft is trying to innovate, even if they seem to have a rough time of it. THAT'S what competition is about, not copying someone's designs and tweaking it a little. It's about building a better product than the other guy. Microsoft, and it pains me to say it, is one of the few companies other than Apple that are truly trying to innovate in the mobile device space. Samsung is just another East-Asian mega-conglomerate trying to cash in on someone else's work. In 2010, Samsung's revenue (not including subsidiaries outside of Korea) was $258 billion. Apple's was $63.5 Billion. I mention that because the anti-Apple narrative is that somehow they are bullying poor little Samsung when that just isn't the case. Samsung is the number 2 patent holder by number of patents globally, just after IBM and just ahead of Canon. Microsoft comes in at number 6. And Apple -- number 39. RIM is number 40. To make Apple out as the villan in this saga is ridiculous. Maybe we don't like Apple because their SDK offends us or our neo-hipster aesthetic is offended by the ubiquitousness of their products, but in this case, Samsung is getting exactly what they deserve. People that want to turn this into an Android vs. Apple battle are missing the point of the injunction, nor did they read the filings in the case. If this were an Android/Apple battle, it would be Google in the courtroom.
- Intermernet 14y ago
  http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in-2006-21278/samsung-ipad-photo-frame/ http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in...

simonbrown 14y ago

Surely it takes away any incentive of the original producers to innovate if the product is quickly cloned (even under a different name) and sold at close to break even point, leading consumers to buy the cheaper one (and perhaps even wait for it to arrive), preventing the producer from even recouping their R&D costs?

briandear 14y ago

I agree that the copycats who "do it cheaper" do drive innovation at some level, however, the reason they can do it cheaper is that they've invested almost nothing into developing the product, other than reverse-engineering costs. For example, no one was doing a multitouch screen for a consumer mobile device until Apple. In fact, companies such as RIM where declaring the full QWERTY hardware keyboards were the future of smartphones. So Apple took a risk, a huge risk in fact. So when a company like Samsung (or any in their cohort) comes along and puts a touchscreen on a phone, when no one else was doing it before, Samsung effectively benefited from Apple's risk. I'm not arguing that the concept of a touchscreen should be patent-protected, however the specific technology behind should be. Furthermore, part of Samsung's complaint against the injunction is that the iPad design patent is "generic" and should not be subject to protection, yet if it was so generic, then why wasn't anyone else using that design before Apple? Just because it's minimal doesn't mean it's generic. It appears generic because the iPad became so ubiquitous. Coca-Cola bottles are another good example of the logic behind a design patent. The Coca-Cola's classic "Contour" bottle, or "Hobble skirt" bottle, from 1915 was one of the first glass containers ever to be patented based only on its unique shape. In 1916, Coca-Cola debuted the patented bottle which would help distinguish them from competitors. Even today, that bottle is recognized as a "Coke bottle." No one is arguing that bottles should be patent protected, but the specific characteristics that make a bottle unique certainly should be. The Coke bottle is a prime example. Design patents protect that which distinguishes one product from another. If you look at this image: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/galaxy-tab-hands-on/samsung-galaxy-tab-8.jpg http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/gal... The products look almost identical, although the Galaxy pictured is the smaller version than the 10.1. But really.. who in their right mind can say that Samsung just happened to come up with the exact same design as Apple. More importantly, would the neighbor down the street, if she saw them both together, be able to tell them apart? She's likely say, "Oh cool, Apple made a smaller iPad." For more examples of Samsung blatantly ripping off Apple designs, have a look at this: http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg Samsung copied the exact same green for the phone icon as well as positioned it in the exact same default location as the iPhone. The clock icon is a square clock with a round face with a slight change of shading. The Notes/Memo icon is virtually identical expect the Samsung version is slightly zoomed out. The similarities continue through Galaxy products. The web browser icon even (at least a year ago) had a compass on it! I am not a fan of RIM equipment by any stretch, but at least they designed their own icons without ripping off Apple: http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/blackberry-6-home-screen.jpg http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/blackb... Even the Samsung box design was copied from Apple. Samsung box: http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galax... Apple box: http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-unboxing1.jpg http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-... For comparison, here's a Sony box: http://www.taragis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Tablet-S-Box1.jpg http://www.taragis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Table... We, the tech minded can argue differences, but that isn't at issue. Of course a tech person knows the difference between a Samsung Galaxy XYZ123 and an XYZ321, but the average person that sees that Samsung product is going to certainly confuse it with Apple. Arguing that this injunction is somehow stifling innovation is bullshit. Samsung themselves are stiffing their own innovation trying to create a copycat product and riding the Apple gravy train as opposed to inventing something of their own. At least Amazon, Sony, HP, Microsoft are/were attempting to distinguish themselves. I respect the vapor-ware MS Surface far more than the extant Samsung Galaxy simply because at least Microsoft is trying to innovate, even if they seem to have a rough time of it. THAT'S what competition is about, not copying someone's designs and tweaking it a little. It's about building a better product than the other guy. Microsoft, and it pains me to say it, is one of the few companies other than Apple that are truly trying to innovate in the mobile device space. Samsung is just another East-Asian mega-conglomerate trying to cash in on someone else's work. In 2010, Samsung's revenue (not including subsidiaries outside of Korea) was $258 billion. Apple's was $63.5 Billion. I mention that because the anti-Apple narrative is that somehow they are bullying poor little Samsung when that just isn't the case. Samsung is the number 2 patent holder by number of patents globally, just after IBM and just ahead of Canon. Microsoft comes in at number 6. And Apple -- number 39. RIM is number 40. To make Apple out as the villan in this saga is ridiculous. Maybe we don't like Apple because their SDK offends us or our neo-hipster aesthetic is offended by the ubiquitousness of their products, but in this case, Samsung is getting exactly what they deserve. People that want to turn this into an Android vs. Apple battle are missing the point of the injunction, nor did they read the filings in the case. If this were an Android/Apple battle, it would be Google in the courtroom.

Intermernet 14y ago
http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in-2006-21278/samsung-ipad-photo-frame/ http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in...