Is anyone following the Apple v Samsung battle?
-
Apples shenanigans got me thinking...
-
Some time ago we had a long discussion in our office about patents, copyrights and our architectural design.
Some facts are listed below...-
music/publishing etc
The term of protection or duration of copyright varies depending on the type of copyright work. The term of protection in the UK for an original written (literary), theatrical (dramatic) musical or artistic work lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the year in which he/she died. -
patents - complex engines, ground braking solutions etc
Protection in EU - for up to a maximum of 20 years - renewal every year -
design patents
Protection in EU - for up to a maximum of 25 years - renewal every 5 years
And now...
The design patent is getting tricky as we can see in the Apple vs Samsung case.
Some simple, basic shapes should not be protected for years - you could have 12-24-36 months protection dependent on the 'complexity'.In Apple's IPhone and IPad scenario it could be 12-24 months of protection but, the technology behind it's a completely different animal.
If Apple gets $1 bilion for 'shape' infringement, I wonder how much Sumsung would get for each technological infringement?
The judge asked both parties to speak to each other before jury begins deliberating as he knows that there is more to come.
The current approach of Apple and Sumsung (and others) would get more complex soon...In my humble opinion the International Law should set some standards as the Law of The Land would always produce contradicting results between countries.
There are a few other Apple's cases where, apparently the Apple's brand infringement took place:
- in a Cafe logo design.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-takes-on-German-cafe-over-logo.html - over Appstore wording
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12817083
and so on.
The trademark should be protected by the Copyright Law but, infringement of shape similarities and dictionary words are starting to be questionable in some cases.
Just some thought in relation to the ground breaking Invention of Fire
-
-
I think Samsung should pull out the big guns (they developed) and stomp the hell out of apple. Some cider should be nice.
-
@marian said:
I think Samsung should pull out the big guns (they developed) and stomp the hell out of apple. Some cider should be nice.
-
Hmmm? That was interesting reading Gregory, that Apple have threatened to protect their logo against such as a cafe chain, and NYC (the big apple) particularly when the logos are in no way similar to the true apple logo and not in the same classes. Apple surely does not have a geographical clain to "Apple" and from what I know they don't have "Apple" cafes! Trademark is considerably different to that of copyright or patent, where two people can hold the same mark but in different classes. And one can lose rights to their trademark should it be in non use - meaning even if they registered in classification of "cafes" if it is not used within 12-36mths it can be lost).
There are SO many grey areas in these laws, another for example "iPhone" can be lost by allowing it to become common language - which I would suggest it possibly has already "new for the iPhone" for example can place it in area of common language as it is not an "iPhone" but an iPhone branded mobile device - should read "new for the iPhone mobile device". The marks "Zipper" and "Escalator" are two well known trademarks to have suffered this fate! Another example of avoiding common use "Roller Blades make for great exercise" should read "Roller Blade inline skates make for great exercise" Companies with such resources normally have an attorney overlook all copy to ensure such common uses don't occur!
The other area of the Law that is grey and in the cases to which Gregory links, the dubious threat of action in the case of the cafe owner can in fact open Apple to action should they be suggesting the trademark is infringing and their actions not followed, you cant threaten if you cant back it up!
I do wonder how long it will be before Apple open themselves up to a class action for "non Competitive practices"? The link between apple products and iTunes is certainly I think ripe for such action and surprised the US gov haven't yet challanged this! Microspft has certainly suffered from such actions in the past!
-
@solo said:
Apples shenanigans got me thinking...
[attachment=0:3monivi6]<!-- ia0 -->caveman fire.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:3monivi6]
didn't make fortune 500 even once
-
They must really like judiciary battles. Otherwise I don't understand Apple: (I don't understand them anyways)
http://www.samsungtechwin.com/product/product_05_01_01.asp
Oh, and as we are about "similar" icons:
http://www.samsungtechwin.com/product/product_06_01.asp -
@unknownuser said:
Here’s how Samsung flew bloggers halfway around the world, then threatened to leave them there
-
Here's a link to some pretty in depth coverage of the dirt on a lot of law suits in progress, including the Apple/Samsung.
Neat thing about this site is it will include pdfs of a lot of the actual affidavits, so will sometimes separate fact from viral internet rumor. -
Wow - that's some darn good reading there Dale!
Funny when you read what the case is about you wonder when BRAUN ears are gonna prick and see the gains likely in an action against apple for stealing their designs from the get go!
-
Good link Dale, thanks. And yep Richard, you might well be right about BRAUN. I imagine some firm of lawyers will see the opportunity here and try to weasel their way onto the gravy train ..... I won't do my rant about lawyers
Then again! I did see Clint Eastwood's little talk with the 'chair' in support of Mitt Romney! It was quite amusing and one thing that stuck in my mind was that Clint thought there was too many lawyers in politics instead of businessmen! I think he is perfectly right!
I could not name one lawyer that ever created a product, company etc etc. Creation of Quangos doesn't count. Maybe governments around the World need to kick the lawyers out and bring in some solid businessmen go get things moving again.
BTW, I think if Steve Jobs was still at the helm, this Apple v Samsung circus would not have escalated to this level.
As I write, I have my FOCUS magazine on the table and see the back page is advertising the GALAXY SIII, there motto is 'designed by humans, inspired by nature', very clever as it doesn't look and feel like a brick to hold
-
@mike lucey said:
BTW, I think if Steve Jobs was still at the helm, this Apple v Samsung circus would not have escalated to this level.
Wasn't he at the helm, in the good old days, just after Microsoft released Windows 1.0 ?
As I remember, Apple sued Microsoft, saying that they had copied "the look and feel" of the Mac. I thought Apple lost that suit, and the decision was then that "look and feel" could not be patented.
Maybe someone can find a link to that old case ?
-
Looks like I stand corrected!
-
A Look can be design registered, or trademarked as can colours, scents, sounds!
-
@richard said:
A Look can be design registered, or trademarked as can colours, scents, sounds!
Which is why my new perfume U-Reek-A is going to nab me a fortune.
I think it is probably Xerox who are wondering why they were thinking when they gave away the farm. -
-
@richard said:
A Look can be design registered, or trademarked as can colours, scents, sounds!
Agree on that.People would kill for copying chicken recipes too. As a designer, you know when you are being copied.
Always, always, I will side with the original.. copycats always try to do things better because they have the original as the base.
Matter of principle.. but not very important to end users really.
-
There are no completely original works. Everything is an improvement on something else or a repurposing of something old to do something new.
@cuttingedge said:
As a designer, you know when you are being copied.
No, you don't. There have plenty of cases when people have stumbled upon similar ideas, but only one profited or overreacted. If things as complex like the telephone, light bulbs and computers had different people at different times and even at the same time coming up with similar ideas then for simple or more common things like logos or food it will happen a lot more frequently. The point is that we don't live in a vacuum, inventions, innovations, ideas, art is a reinterpretation of things we have seen or experienced wether from nature or man made objects. So copyright and patent laws should reflect this and not treat the author, inventor, artist etc, like some divine genius that can conjur things out of thin air.
@cuttingedge said:
Always, always, I will side with the original.. copycats always try to do things better because they have the original as the base.
Of course I don't side with counterfeiters that just copy a design or work to pass it off as something that it isn't in order to make a profit. But taking something, applying the best features up to that point and making improvements on it is called progress.
Progress should be more important than the profits of any one company or individual. I'm not saying that the innovators shouldn't be protected for a limited time but to stifle competition and progress for more than a years or 2 is too much. -
@mike lucey said:
BTW, I think if Steve Jobs was still at the helm, this Apple v Samsung circus would not have escalated to this level.
"Steve Jobs said he wanted to destroy Android and would spend all of Apple's money and his dying breath if that is what it took to do so."
-
And, let's dredge up this old TED article.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Advertisement