|
I get the impression that a lot of the anti-Apple camp get the same sense about people who "support" the decision, and I use that term loosely. I'd like to offer the following: Apple has been consistent in actively defending any design element, hardware or software, they feel is uniquely identifiable as Apple. This has always been about brand identity, but something so amorphous and difficult to regulate have few tools to protect them so instead the fights focus on technicalities. A patent here, a copyright there, a trademark, whatever. It's always fun to point and laugh at the specifics, but it's the bigger overall picture at play that's defining the actions, not the actions themselves. Long debates exist over whether the ends justify the means ect. so no need to get into it here. Samsung is just the latest in this trend and sort of the current poster child of businesses who's modus operandi is mimicking the successful designs of market leader products (whether it's software, hardware, appliances, whatever) and offering them at lower costs to cannibalize (couldn't think of a better word) the market as much as possible. There's nothing explicitly illegal about it since they aren't 100% knockoffs, but they skirt a very fine line, and I, like many others, seem to find it a morally detestable practice which can have a negative long term impact on the market and can debatably hurt consumers in ways they aren't always aware of. (apologies, still looking for a source on this). I think you'll find that most people who support the decision also agree that the need to weaponize a patent on an arguably questionable "innovative UI" in order to convince a bad actor to stop copying other people's work is absurd and has a serious chilling effect that can hurt more than it can help. IANAL, but my feeling is that if the market is significantly large enough scale the tools available that would be more appropriate to use don't carry enough weight behind them to create an equally compelling incentive to "play fair". Many companies seem to be resorting to using patents, copyright, and trademark instead to create an incentive compelling enough to negotiate some sort of mutual agreement (forced or otherwise). I think we can all agree that this activity is an abuse of those "protections" and a very compelling argument to have a good long look at them and determine what positive and negative motivational forces they create. However, while two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a genuine grievance in this case where the systems, as they currently exist, have not been able to resolve without heavy dependance on technicalities that taken individually may not mean much to the original issue. This is at least how I've personally been able to rationalize the disparity I have of the two positions and I get the feeling from other "supporters" that something similar is going on. |