[QUOTE=enry;16040874]comunque scusa gnr eh, se non è il discorso del “design rettangolare ad angoli smussati” è quello delle gestures e cagate varie..[/QUOTE]
No, il discorso è questo:
[QUOTE]Copycats who “do it cheaper” do drive innovation at some level, however, the reason they can do it cheaper is that they’ve invested almost nothing into developing the product, other than reverse-engineering costs. For example, no one was doing a multitouch screen for a consumer mobile device until Apple. In fact, companies such as RIM where declaring the full QWERTY hardware keyboards were the future of smartphones. So Apple took a risk, a huge risk in fact. So when a company like Samsung (or any in their cohort) comes along and puts a touchscreen on a phone, when no one else was doing it before, Samsung effectively benefited from Apple’s risk. I’m not arguing that the concept of a touchscreen should be patent-protected, however the specific technology behind should be.
Furthermore, part of Samsung’s complaint against the injunction is that the iPad design patent is “generic” and should not be subject to protection, yet if it was so generic, then why wasn’t anyone else using that design before Apple? Just because it’s minimal doesn’t mean it’s generic. It appears generic because the iPad became so ubiquitous.
Coca-Cola bottles are another good example of the logic behind a design patent. The Coca-Cola’s classic “Contour” bottle, or “Hobble skirt” bottle, from 1915 was one of the first glass containers ever to be patented based only on its unique shape. In 1916, Coca-Cola debuted the patented bottle which would help distinguish them from competitors. Even today, that bottle is recognized as a “Coke bottle.” No one is arguing that bottles should be patent protected, but the specific characteristics that make a bottle unique certainly should be. The Coke bottle is a prime example.
The tech minded can argue differences, but that isn’t at issue. Of course a tech person knows the difference between a Samsung Galaxy XYZ123 and an XYZ321, but the average person that sees that Samsung product is going to certainly confuse it with Apple.
Arguing that this injunction is somehow stifling innovation is bullshit. Samsung themselves are stiffing their own innovation trying to create a copycat product and riding the Apple gravy train as opposed to inventing something of their own. At least Amazon, Sony, HP, Microsoft are/were attempting to distinguish themselves. I respect the vapor-ware MS Surface far more than the extant Samsung Galaxy simply because at least Microsoft is trying to innovate, even if they seem to have a rough time of it. THAT’S what competition is about, not copying someone’s designs and tweaking it a little. It’s about building a better product than the other guy.
Microsoft, and it pains me to say it, is one of the few companies other than Apple that are truly trying to innovate in the mobile device space. Samsung is just another East-Asian mega-conglomerate trying to cash in on someone else’s work. In 2010, Samsung’s revenue (not including subsidiaries outside of Korea) was $258 billion. Apple’s was $63.5 Billion. I mention that because the anti-Apple narrative is that somehow they are bullying poor little Samsung when that just isn’t the case. Samsung is the number 2 patent holder by number of patents globally, just after IBM and just ahead of Canon. Microsoft comes in at number 6. And Apple — number 39. RIM is number 40.
To make Apple out as the villan in this saga is ridiculous. Maybe we don’t like Apple because of their Walled Garden approach or our neo-hipster aesthetic is offended by the ubiquitousness of their products, but in this case, Samsung is getting exactly what they deserve.
People that want to turn this into an Android vs. Apple battle are missing the point of the injunction, nor did they read the filings in the case. If this were an Android/Apple battle, it would be Google in the courtroom.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
