Is anyone following the Apple v Samsung battle?
-
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 -
I had to post this image that I came across the other day on Apple's own efforts of copying the designs of BRAUN. Makes you really question Apple's level or so called "morals!".
-
@richard said:
I had to post this image that I came across the other day on Apple's own efforts of copying the designs of BRAUN. Makes you really question Apple's level or so called "morals!".
So like I said, improvement of designs and function without copying something outright is called progress and that picture shows it clearly. It's obvious that Apple is an extremely hypocritical and overzelous company. They should either reform or die. If they had been a more "normal" company I'm pretty sure they could have been even more successful then they are now, but they just polarize their potential customer base and lose out.
-
I think we are getting to the nub of the matter!
I found an interesting piece, Was Steve Jobs an Innovator or Just a Tweaker?
http://thomaszweifel.blogspot.ie/2011/12/was-steve-jobs-innovator-or-just.html It takes an interesting approach with good backups arguments.I like, "Such men, the economists argue, provided the 'micro inventions necessary to make macro inventions highly productive and remunerative." also what Bill G said to Steve J when he was 'summoned' for a bollocking after the launch of Windows, "Gates looked back at Jobs calmly. Everyone knew where the windows and the icons came from. 'Well, Steve,' Gates responded. 'I think there’s more than one way of looking at it. I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.' "
For me Jobs was a clever innovative tweaker and his real innovation was the realization that in order to produce the total Apple package it had to be a 'closed system' consisting of nice shiney products run by a good solid OS. This way the Apple Package could not be added to and the tweak could be seen as an Apple 'Innovation' with a few clever but minor enough inventions.
If Apple top brass could employ robots to work for them in there outlets and I imagine to a certain degree, in their design / development departments, I believe they would do so. Much of their manufacturing is by robots from what I see and the aim is probably total manufacture by robots.
I like Apple products and will remain buying / using them until I see something better to take their place. While I would not like to work for Apple in their closed system I can see the benefits of this system, less possibilities of breakdowns due to 3rd party add ons etc. The new 15" MBP is an example of this with no real possibility of even upgrading memory after sale! But at the same time the unit is quite an impressive 'tweak' with its retina display but this lead will be short lived as I imagine the other big guns are working on similar displays / packaging.
As far as court battles go, this looks to me to be just another means of retaining market share for as long as possible. Copyright is only the argument being used, I really don't think its about design copyright. I think this route is now being perused because Apple's coffers as so full of cash that they are not worried about what the legal vultures are / will change for their efforts in confusing matters which in turn holds Apple's market grasp for longer, in the USA and possibly parts of the EU at least. Its all about cash!
-
.... further.
We all remember the MAC v WIN videos, now dead in their tracks? While they were funny at the start, they beacme boring over time.
I think a lot of MAC users, me included, felt these videos were a little underhanded. The way to trump the opposition / competition is by producing better results, not trying to make them look stupid! Apple must have realised this and are now taking the Court route.
Folks will see through this also. Trouble is now, from what I see, is that Apple could well be believing their own BS! I wish they would cut out this messing and get on with what they are quite good at, innovative tweaking. I am quite looking forward to seeing what they have in mind for my possible next TV
Advertisement