5 ms·

Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress). But trade dres

Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress). But trade dress protection is not intended to prevent intellectual dishonesty or protect intellectual property or any other notion of fairness between companies. It is there for a specific practical purpose: to protect consumers from confusion. But Apple's branding is so effective and distinctive that confusing consumers about what is or isn't an Apple product would be quite difficult without straight up violating their trademarks. Look again at the gallery you linked to, and instead of asking "Did Samsung copy Apple?", ask yourself "Could a shopper looking for a smartphone in a store honestly confuse these two products?" Also, the iPod connector? Nothing to do with the Galaxy S. That's probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones. The Galaxy S uses micro-USB.

culturestate 14y ago
> Also, the iPod connector...probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones. That is the stock galaxy tab cable. http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1DP0UBEGSTA?from_mobile=true http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1...
- mistercow 14y ago
  Interesting. And I see that it is in fact not interchangeable with the iPod connector. Still, it's pretty hard to imagine someone mistaking a Galaxy Tab for an iPad because of the USB connector.
  - headShrinker 14y ago
    It all adds up. Any one thing is not going to cause 'someone mistaking a galaxy tab for an ipad', But when you put everything together, not even the lawyer for Samsung could distinguish the two.
jakobe 14y ago
Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. That's what trade dress protection should prevent.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product. >Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? >That's what trade dress protection should prevent. That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.
  - salgernon 14y ago
    >>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. >On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? I'm sure there's something more authoritative: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. (Random video of this) http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress). You certainly have a very interesting definition for "progress."
- mistercow 14y ago
  No, I have a very mundane, standard definition of progress. One of the many negative effects of our society's pathological individualism is this idea that copying an idea is intrinsically immoral. In fact, copying is necessary to innovation and innovation is pointless without more copying. Ever notice that basically all cars have 90% identical feature sets while only a small handful of special features differentiate any particular model from the rest of the market? How did that situation come about? Did God come down from heaven in 1970 with some stone tablets describing an AMC Pacer and declare "Here is the basic idea of the automobile. Now go forth and add superficial features to this design"? Of course not. What happened was that manufacturers competed for many decades, incrementally adding new features. And when one manufacturer found a feature that succeeded in the market, other manufacturers copied it. This is how technology advances: by building on past success.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    I think you're a bit confused. There's a difference between copying and imitation. For example, all cars may have driver seats, but no two driver seats are identical. They all differ in material, shape, color, comfort, adjustability (or even adjusting mechanism)... What does not lead to progress is imitation, where the feature in question is copied to be completely identical without any incremental improvements or adjustments for context.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Well, Samsung's products aren't even close to identical to Apple's, so there you have it.
      - 14y ago
rayiner 14y ago
My mom would totally be confused by all of those examples. My mom, like many (most?) people doesn't like to read labels. She sees the general look. That's why trade dress protection exists as distinct from trade mark protection.
- sahaj 14y ago
  I bet your mom also couldn't tell the difference between a Sharp TV or a Samsung TV if they didn't have the labels. I think your point is moot.

culturestate 14y ago

> Also, the iPod connector...probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones. That is the stock galaxy tab cable. http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1DP0UBEGSTA?from_mobile=true http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1...

mistercow 14y ago
Interesting. And I see that it is in fact not interchangeable with the iPod connector. Still, it's pretty hard to imagine someone mistaking a Galaxy Tab for an iPad because of the USB connector.
- headShrinker 14y ago
  It all adds up. Any one thing is not going to cause 'someone mistaking a galaxy tab for an ipad', But when you put everything together, not even the lawyer for Samsung could distinguish the two.

jakobe 14y ago

Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. That's what trade dress protection should prevent.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.
mistercow 14y ago
>Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product. >Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? >That's what trade dress protection should prevent. That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.
- salgernon 14y ago
  >>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. >On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? I'm sure there's something more authoritative: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. (Random video of this) http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.

enraged_camel 14y ago

>>Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress). You certainly have a very interesting definition for "progress."

mistercow 14y ago
No, I have a very mundane, standard definition of progress. One of the many negative effects of our society's pathological individualism is this idea that copying an idea is intrinsically immoral. In fact, copying is necessary to innovation and innovation is pointless without more copying. Ever notice that basically all cars have 90% identical feature sets while only a small handful of special features differentiate any particular model from the rest of the market? How did that situation come about? Did God come down from heaven in 1970 with some stone tablets describing an AMC Pacer and declare "Here is the basic idea of the automobile. Now go forth and add superficial features to this design"? Of course not. What happened was that manufacturers competed for many decades, incrementally adding new features. And when one manufacturer found a feature that succeeded in the market, other manufacturers copied it. This is how technology advances: by building on past success.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  I think you're a bit confused. There's a difference between copying and imitation. For example, all cars may have driver seats, but no two driver seats are identical. They all differ in material, shape, color, comfort, adjustability (or even adjusting mechanism)... What does not lead to progress is imitation, where the feature in question is copied to be completely identical without any incremental improvements or adjustments for context.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Well, Samsung's products aren't even close to identical to Apple's, so there you have it.
    - 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

My mom would totally be confused by all of those examples. My mom, like many (most?) people doesn't like to read labels. She sees the general look. That's why trade dress protection exists as distinct from trade mark protection.

sahaj 14y ago
I bet your mom also couldn't tell the difference between a Sharp TV or a Samsung TV if they didn't have the labels. I think your point is moot.