But the designs aren't identical. They are similar, kind of like how Apple and Braun designs are similar.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Did the Apple vs Samsung trial made you feel differently about Apple?
- Thread starter Dolorian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But the designs aren't identical. They are similar, kind of like how Apple and Braun designs are similar.
you mean just like the galaxy. OMG put them in other views and clearly they are different.
Well guess what - Steve Jobs called it theft. This is a moral issue, not playing legalistic games.
That's about the lamest appeal to authority I've seen in my life.
Steve Jobs was more than a little petulant, and tended towards hyperbole. The fact of the matter is, despite all the histrionics and pouting, he regularly did the exact same thing he accused other companies of. If he saw something he liked, he took it and used it in his products. Sometimes he paid, sometimes he didn't.
Unless you're copying the code line by line, or directly lifting someone elses graphical assets, using someone else's idea isn't stealing. It's not exactly like you can just go in and take an idea. You have to do the work implementing it yourself, almost exactly like the originator had to do. In the process, you might end up doing something better than he did, and he in turn could end up taking your improvements to use in his own products.
That's the way it should work. Unfortunately, we've got this idea in our heads that software implementations are exactly like mechanical ones, despite the fact that there are only so many ways you can do things in software. If things were to pan out the way the "infringement is stealing" crowd hopes, that coded ideas can be locked down for 35 years through patents, it would end up being the death of innovation in the industry.
Wanna know why? I'll tell you.
Eventually, most everything you can do in software will be patented. There might be a couple of new ideas here and there, but chances are good you won't be able to implement them without infringing 1000 other software patents in the process. That means the geek programming out of his garage with a brilliant idea won't have the money or the means to give his brilliant idea to the world. The best he could hope for is to sell his idea to a big multibillion dollar corporation who may or may not use it.
In other words, the very situation that gave rise to Apple Computers, the company you know and love and defend to the death, would be an impossibility if what you wanted were to come to pass. Instead, Apple computers would've had a brilliant idea they'd have to sell to IBM, because they didn't have the $400,000 minimum to license the thousands of patents necessary to create their first PC.
Software patents protect old ideas at the expense of new ones. Since a software patent is basically a patent on a concept, they're incredibly difficult to work around. Whoever gets to the patent office first basically owns the concept for 35 year. No one else can do anything with it without forking over a ton of cash.
Innovation dies.
Steve Jobs was more than a little petulant, and tended towards hyperbole. The fact of the matter is, despite all the histrionics and pouting, he regularly did the exact same thing he accused other companies of. If he saw something he liked, he took it and used it in his products. Sometimes he paid, sometimes he didn't.
Unless you're copying the code line by line, or directly lifting someone elses graphical assets, using someone else's idea isn't stealing. It's not exactly like you can just go in and take an idea. You have to do the work implementing it yourself, almost exactly like the originator had to do. In the process, you might end up doing something better than he did, and he in turn could end up taking your improvements to use in his own products.
That's the way it should work. Unfortunately, we've got this idea in our heads that software implementations are exactly like mechanical ones, despite the fact that there are only so many ways you can do things in software. If things were to pan out the way the "infringement is stealing" crowd hopes, that coded ideas can be locked down for 35 years through patents, it would end up being the death of innovation in the industry.
Wanna know why? I'll tell you.
Eventually, most everything you can do in software will be patented. There might be a couple of new ideas here and there, but chances are good you won't be able to implement them without infringing 1000 other software patents in the process. That means the geek programming out of his garage with a brilliant idea won't have the money or the means to give his brilliant idea to the world. The best he could hope for is to sell his idea to a big multibillion dollar corporation who may or may not use it.
In other words, the very situation that gave rise to Apple Computers, the company you know and love and defend to the death, would be an impossibility if what you wanted were to come to pass. Instead, Apple computers would've had a brilliant idea they'd have to sell to IBM, because they didn't have the $400,000 minimum to license the thousands of patents necessary to create their first PC.
Software patents protect old ideas at the expense of new ones. Since a software patent is basically a patent on a concept, they're incredibly difficult to work around. Whoever gets to the patent office first basically owns the concept for 35 year. No one else can do anything with it without forking over a ton of cash.
Innovation dies.
I believe this can apply to many people when they take issue with any given product. Because they want to like it.
That's the goal :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828085512779
The last decade has been about destroying the Free software and open source movements. There has been tons of attacks on the movement, and this is just the latest salvo.
Geeks coding out of their garage threatens the established order.
It was about Samsung violating design/software patents and trade dress. It was wholesale IP and brand theft. Samsung literally tried to fool people into thinking they were getting an iPhone with the Galaxy S.
It's not changed my opinion at all. If you look at any major corporate in the world, they're all in business to make money and satisfy their shareholders. Seeing as Apple are in the technology industry, it's only right that they fight tooth and nail for the patents and designs that make their money. I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong. It's their business and they should do what they can to protect it - as any sane and respectable company would.
Ironic, that the very companies that are trying stop things like " geeks in the garage " Apple and Microsoft, were started by people coding/building in their garage isnt it?
I thought Microsoft had cleaned up their act, guess I was wrong.
...I find it amazing some people around here actually support this. I'm hardly an FOSS zealot, and think people should make money off the things they make if they want to, isn't the way to go about doing it. It's not about protecting ideas and innovations, rather exclusivity to the concepts that make future ideas and innovations possible. It works counter to the way most people believe it does.
Did they? Do you know anyone who confused an iPhone with a Galaxy S? Yeah, okay. They were pretty similar looking, and Samsung did deserve to be called out for it. But similar isn't the same as exact. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of products that look similar to hundreds of thousands of other products on the market. What makes Samsung's similar worse than others?
Plus, Samsung getting sued for being a little too similar could have far reaching consequences that effect even the tried and true innovators. This my biggest problem with the case. Not so much that it "allows copying", so much as it could mark honest innovation as "yet more copying".
How so ? It's not the actual proverbial "geek" in the garage that's threatening, it's that the modern "geek in the garage" isn't following in the footsteps of the great leaders of today that used to be those geeks.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ellison, they had one goal in mind : Business success. Take that little known project in their garage or dorm, and sell it to make big bucks.
Then the weirdos at Berkeley, the people behind the Free Software Foundations and other "hippies" and "marginals" went and started giving it all away. And not only were they sharing what they created, they were sharing how they created it, and we're allowing others to take that work, build upon it, modify it and pass it on to the next guy.
"How are we supposed to make money if these guys are giving away our secrets ?"
----------
It's not about making money. Open source software does not preclude making money off of it. You can turn around and charge for your GPL code. It's even covered in the FAQ and in a separate article on their site.
Don't get this wrong, this isn't about the price of the free software. It's about the Free sharing of ideas, concepts and source code that enables other to build solutions quickly in a compatible way that interoperates well. All things that proprietary solutions vendor do not want, as it does the opposite of locking you in.
Look at how Apple is using many derivations of standards and introducing new protocols for their stuff when perfectly open solutions exist (Airplay, the whole mDP thing, HTTP Live Streaming, etc.. etc..). The goal is to lock you in so they can get to your wallet through planned obsolescence and upgrades.
