[jseims]

What's annoying is this isn't the real issue. Of course Samsung felt threatened by the iPhone, and set out to copy the aspects of it they liked. That's how capitalism works.

The real issue is what degree of protection should our legal system provide original innovators against those who want to copy their innovations.

I think the guiding principle should be the least legal protection that would still leave enough incentive for the original innovation to be created. In the case of software, where there is little fixed investment cost and a competitive advantage to being "first to market", I have a hard time seeing the need for any legal protection.

For example, could anyone seriously argue that Apple wouldn't, say, implement a "slide to unlock" mechanism on the iPhone if they couldn't patent that behavior?

We really need an act of congress to rectify this situation.

[unfamiliar]

I wouldn't argue that lack of legal protection for "slide to unlock" would stop them including it. But I would suggest that had they had absolutely no legal protection then there is a significant chance that the entire R&D project that became the iPhone wouldn't have happened. Why invest that much time and money, playing with prototypes and ideas that might never come to market, invest billions in production lines, software development and be the first in taking a bold leap into uncharted waters if you have no recourse when someone simply rips you off at the end of the day?

[thurn]

Walk into a Walmart and you can find tons of knockoff products like "Honey Nut Oatie Os". The breakfast cereal industry doesn't appear to have collapsed, though. In fact, you can buy a generic brand version of almost anything.

[twelvechairs]

Yes. It's the designers whose jobs are devalued because although they have created something of immense and enduring worth to society, their value to a (single) organization is much less.

That said it's a complex issue and patents have historically never really covered designers (look at the history of the motorcar, the plane, photography, architecture, etc.)

Also the iPhone is probably the exception - it actually did make a huge amount of money before being copied. Most design projects are far more marginal.

[scott_meade]

"little fixed investment cost"

? I think you underestimate the costs for a company like Apple to go through the design, test, review, tweak cycle over and over again for each of those pixels. The cost to get it just right is not "little".

The extensive costs from the required multiple iterations required to arrive at such designs before they are seen by the public explains why companies like Samsung would prefer to save money, skip the iterations and simply jump straight to the end result by copying.

[cube13]

But this isn't the issue at hand.

Apple's claiming that Samsung deliberately copied their trade dress to confuse consumers. Remember, trade dress isn't functionality. It's the look and feel of the product, not the functionality.

It's over things like the color of the slide to unlock mechanism. The choice of icons and placement. Not the fact that you move your finger across the screen in a certain place to unlock the phone.

[Drakim]

Doesn't their phone say "SAMSUNG" on the top of the frontside?

Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone? They would be doing a terrible job.

[mc32]

That's true, but people are known to buy knock-offs because their looks are close enough to that of the genuine article.

In this kind of example, so long as it looked pretty similar and acted pretty similar, people might feel okay to buy the alternative product --whereas if it had the same functionality, or perhaps better fucntionality, but did not look like the genuine product, they might look elsewhere.

[nessus42]

I don't know about Samsung's phones, but I've definitely held a Samsung tablet that did not say "Samsung"--or in fact anything--on the frontside. It was clearly designed to look as much like an iPad as possible.

And I now own a Google Nexus 7 tablet (in addition to an iPad). It also does not say anything on the frontside. It, clearly, is also designed to look from the front as much like an iPad as possible--only smaller.

[Nerdfest]

... well, you know, except for the size, and those extra buttons. Of course, that takes us back to a black rectangle with rounded corners.

[nessus42]

Btw, there are no extra buttons on a Nexus 7. The front of the Nexus 7 looks almost exactly like an iPad down to nearly every last subtle detail: The color and texture of the brushed aluminum trim, the black and proportions of the frame around the screen, the location of the forward-facing camera, the lack of any text or logo. Even the location of most of the connectors and switches is remarkably similar to the iPad. The only differences are that the headphone connector has been moved to the bottom, and the power button has been moved from the top edge to the right edge. But it is located where there is a button on the iPad.

From looking at the front of the Nexus 7, the only noticeable difference from an iPad is the lack of the round Home button that every iPad has.

To say that this is the only conceivable way for a tablet to look indicates either profound rationalization, or a true lack of imagination and knowledge of history. To assert that Google has such lack of imagination and knowledge of history is even more absurd. History is replete with examples of tablet computers that don't closely resemble the iPad. Even the Kindle Fire is noticeably different.

[nessus42]

I'm constantly entertained by the amazing things that people will claim.

[sigzero]

Don't overestimate the smarts of Joe Public.

[batista]

>Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone?

Confusing them with a clone doesn't necessarily mean having them believe they are buying an iPhone.

It's about having them believe: "well, this looks same-ish to me, it should be just as good as that iPhone thing".

[monochromatic]

Except software is really easy to copy. That should maybe enter into the calculation.