A broader question
August 20, 2012 9:39 AM Subscribe
Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple? This is particularly relevant in the context of the Apple/Samsung trial, because it isn't the first time Apple has been involved in a high-stakes "copying" court case. If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple's case there was eerily similar to the one they're running today: "we innovated in creating the graphical user interface; Microsoft copied us; if our competitors simply copy us, it's impossible for us to keep innovating." Apple ended up losing the case.
But it's what happened next that's really fascinating.
Apple didn't stop innovating at all.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Maybe let's just keep this to the extant thread. -- cortex
That article points out how much some people think that the current state of IP laws are somehow "natural", and are surprised when markets don't behave the way the more extreme defenders claim.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2012
posted by benito.strauss at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2012
Shareholders care, because if there's a profitable avenue for competition, a company must take it or be at risk of a malfeasance charge. And the legal climate in the US allows for competition via IP assignment. With billions of dollars in play, they basically have to do this crap. The only way to stop it is change the laws that make it worthwhile.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2012
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2012
This lawsuit just makes Apple look ridiculous. Everything I read about it is ludicrous. As an iMac and Air owner, I say "Fuck Apple" whenever I read about it. I don't know if they care that their users are growing to hate them, and I'm obviously just one example, but I am. I switched from iPhone to Android (and Samsung at that), and absolutely consider it an upgrade.
posted by dobbs at 9:48 AM on August 20, 2012
posted by dobbs at 9:48 AM on August 20, 2012
But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all.
Except that Apple was nearly driven bankrupt by 1997. They only recovered about two decades after their UI was copied, so using a lucky outcome that takes a couple decades to show results is kind of an odd way to defend copying.
Another way to look at this, perhaps, is that, if Apple loses, there will be a rush of copycats making clones, which benefits everyone directly and indirectly. If Apple wins, their competitors will be forced to come up with their own original works, which benefits everyone directly and indirectly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:51 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Except that Apple was nearly driven bankrupt by 1997. They only recovered about two decades after their UI was copied, so using a lucky outcome that takes a couple decades to show results is kind of an odd way to defend copying.
Another way to look at this, perhaps, is that, if Apple loses, there will be a rush of copycats making clones, which benefits everyone directly and indirectly. If Apple wins, their competitors will be forced to come up with their own original works, which benefits everyone directly and indirectly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:51 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
« Older Jumbo Fingerprints Made From Random Stuff | Spectrum: New American Music 1968-1974 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 9:41 AM on August 20, 2012