4 ms·

There is a difference here (although I admit I'm experiencing some lovely schadenfreude glow over here). Samsung built camouflaged products that were designed t

by ender7 14y ago

There is a difference here (although I admit I'm experiencing some lovely schadenfreude glow over here). Samsung built camouflaged products that were designed to confuse buyers into thinking they were buying an iPad. Here, Apple has ripped off an iconic design, but there's little doubt that what they are selling is still an iPhone and not a Swiss watch. Still, trade dress (and accusations of douchebaggery) still apply -- and, in a broader sense, Apple are still hypocrits for decrying "copying" while still doing it themselves. The exact nature of the copying is simply different.

codeka 14y ago
Given that all of Samsung's phones have the word "Samsung" stamped on them in fairly large letters, I don't think they were doing anything to intentionally confuse buyers. Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.
- culturestate 14y ago
  > Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so. Well, if they weren't intending to do it, then it was quite a happy accident. http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/ http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu...
zaphar 14y ago
you make an accusation that I have seen no evidence of in the press. Are you possessed of information demonstrating intent on Samsung's part to confuse buyers?
- dmishe 14y ago
  Isn't that what dilution of trade dress is?
  - belorn 14y ago
    The jury did find Samsung guilty of diluting the trade dress, but their reasoning was this: If the phone has space between the edge of the screen and the edge of the phone, then a consumer could be confused into thinking it is an iphone. Thats it. That was the test. If you have some space at the bottom of the phone thats not part of the screen, go to jail and dont pass go. Samsungs argument is that the space is functional, ie, serve a functional purpose, and thus make the bazel invalid as a trade dress for the iphone. Requirement for being granted trade dress is that it does not serve a utility or function outside of creating recognition in the consumer’s mind. Take a stop sign and its color red. Can the color red become trade dress for signs? The answer is no, as the color serves a second purpose, which is that red is associated with danger/attention required information. Since the color now has a function, it can not be trade dress.
varunsrin 14y ago
Samsung has invested a ton of money in developing the Galaxy brand through billboards, TV ads and so on. While you can definitely argue that many of their UI elements bear a striking resemblance to Apple's, they take every opportunity to reinforce their brand name.
abcd_f 14y ago
Apple's diluting and commoditizing SBB'a brand. It's not about iPhone being confused with Swiss train station clocks. It's about Swiss train station clocks being confused with iPhone's clock app.

by ender7 14y ago

codeka 14y ago

Given that all of Samsung's phones have the word "Samsung" stamped on them in fairly large letters, I don't think they were doing anything to intentionally confuse buyers. Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.

culturestate 14y ago
> Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so. Well, if they weren't intending to do it, then it was quite a happy accident. http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/ http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu...

zaphar 14y ago

you make an accusation that I have seen no evidence of in the press. Are you possessed of information demonstrating intent on Samsung's part to confuse buyers?

dmishe 14y ago
Isn't that what dilution of trade dress is?
- belorn 14y ago
  The jury did find Samsung guilty of diluting the trade dress, but their reasoning was this: If the phone has space between the edge of the screen and the edge of the phone, then a consumer could be confused into thinking it is an iphone. Thats it. That was the test. If you have some space at the bottom of the phone thats not part of the screen, go to jail and dont pass go. Samsungs argument is that the space is functional, ie, serve a functional purpose, and thus make the bazel invalid as a trade dress for the iphone. Requirement for being granted trade dress is that it does not serve a utility or function outside of creating recognition in the consumer’s mind. Take a stop sign and its color red. Can the color red become trade dress for signs? The answer is no, as the color serves a second purpose, which is that red is associated with danger/attention required information. Since the color now has a function, it can not be trade dress.

varunsrin 14y ago

Samsung has invested a ton of money in developing the Galaxy brand through billboards, TV ads and so on. While you can definitely argue that many of their UI elements bear a striking resemblance to Apple's, they take every opportunity to reinforce their brand name.

abcd_f 14y ago

Apple's diluting and commoditizing SBB'a brand. It's not about iPhone being confused with Swiss train station clocks. It's about Swiss train station clocks being confused with iPhone's clock app.