3 ms·
It's a fascinating doc. Is there a point where you cross the line from "inspiration" to methodically duplicating every last detail? Or should it not matter?
by nilsbunger 14y ago
It's a fascinating doc. Is there a point where you cross the line from "inspiration" to methodically duplicating every last detail? Or should it not matter?
- arrrg 14y agoI think that’s an interesting moral question – but I also think it shouldn’t matter legally. That said, I can get behind legal protections for consumers (not companies) to not be deceived. I’m not sure that’s the case here, though, and at any rate, Samsung’s phones now look sufficiently different as to not be confused with any Apple products.
- nilsbunger 14y agoYes, I also learned a lot about "trade dress" from this suit. It does make sense to me that intentionally making a device so similar that it confuses consumers shouldn't be allowed. It's a different issue than SW patents, and seems more clearly wrong to me.
- biggfoot 14y agoIt is a competitor analysis document. Lot of products do this. Much of the feedback in that sheet is just honest comparison and improvement suggestions.
- cmelbye 14y agoIt's not just an analysis. They systematically compared every aspect of the phones where the iPhone had the advantage, and then provided a directive on how their phone should be modified so it was more like the iPhone. That's not merely analysis, it's concrete directives.
- biggfoot 14y agoYour comment suggests that Samsung went out of its way to ape the iPhone because it wanted to ape the iPhone. If you had some other brand in their place as a market leader then it would have been that brand's phone in place of iPhone And NO I don't think they are aping it. Such analysis is everyday stuff ...