Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 22:14 UTC
Legal "The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit. It's been a unique opportunity to peer behind the curtain of how these two companies operate, as the trial seeks to answer the question: did Samsung copy Apple? But there's actually another question that I think is much more interesting to the future of innovation in the technology industry: regardless of whether the courts say that Samsung copied Apple or not, would we all be better off if we allowed - even encouraged - companies to copy one another?" This is very relevant.
Thread beginning with comment 531603
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

RIM and Microsoft have seemed to be able to create products that don't imitate Apple products. This is innovation, this is what customers give a real and clear choice.

What hinders innovation are the huge number of silly patents, like attaching a picture to an email(!?). Even if you made a totally different product you can still get hit when that product can attach a picture to an email.

A patent like this isn't an invention, an innovation or even "it's obvious with hindsight, but you never would have thought about it yourself".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Tue 21st Aug 2012 07:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Two things:

1) "Copying" isn't "imitating".

2) Everyone copies from older designs.

None of this has been shown to stop innovation. History shows it can increase innovation. Conversely, innovation grinds to a halt when copying is forbidden.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 08:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, you can copy an idea. Microsoft Surface and RIM's Playbook build on the tablet idea, an idea Apple showed can make money if done right.

Neither Surface or Playbook scream "iPad". A number of Android powered products do, but Samsung went much further than that.

So I consider Surface and Playbook to be innovations and Samsung's stuff copies.

Microsoft and RIM used the success of the iPad to do their own tablets, which you can't blame them for, and they did it their way, which is also good. Samsung just copied the iPad/iPhone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by JAlexoid on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 16:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

RIM not imitating? If you subscribe that iPhone is the original in finger touch oriented device with rectangular icons, then RIM is imitating very much. As well as WP7.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 17:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

RIM used their own OS and are now switching to QNX, which they now own, build their own BlackBerry network, designed their own handsets and have own way of operating them. When you see one you recognize it.

WP7/8 is also a product you can easily identify. Nokia WP phones have their own identity. I business phone is a Lumia 800 and I like it.

Amazon did some heavy modification on Android and made it work with their content.

Samsung made Android worse with their attempt to make it look more like iOS. I personally have come across a number of unknown brands that produced media and tablets that even look more like Apple stuff than Samsung's.

Perhaps a strange thing to say from someone like me, but Samsung's stuff would have been better if they were less Apple-like. Stock Android, no crapware, updates to the latest and greatest equals winner.

Reply Parent Score: 2