Whether or not Samsung is going through some sort of "crisis of design", the pernicious nature of what Apple is doing is quite underestimated. They are trying to claim minimalism, the lack of distinction, as their own. It is the minimalism and efficiency dilemma.
Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up against. In fact, this effect will only concentrate even more as the physical nature of technology and innovation disappears as things get smaller and more concentrated.
With technology and design starting to crowd up against a barrier of physical form-factors, it becomes increasingly apparent that patenting and copyrighting should proportionally protect the change, the innovation, the added value; not the absolute.
The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity. There is nothing unique about straight lines, exact curvature, shininess, sharp edges, and uniformity. Apple simply OCDed the shit out of their products. I applaud their designs and their configuration of technology, but much of it is not sufficiently unique to warrant patenting or copyrighting.
Where do you draw the line, and will Apple (or any other corporations for that matter) be allowed to draw that line right around their interests, products, and designs in a self-serving manner...essentially corporate gerrymandering?
Tongue-in-cheek, so no need to tell me how stupid I am, but we may as well allow for the patent on anything that is different than what existed prior if we are going to allow patenting and copyrighting of what is defined by hardly more than the technological limitations. Should one be allowed to patent a tablet that is 5 mm thick because it is thinner than a 6 mm tablet?
When you patent fundamental constraints, you might as well patent and copyright going from point A to point B and sue everyone that doesn't go through point C to get to point B. You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency.
"The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not."
There are interesting points you make about IP law, but you lost me in the above sentence which is just plain wrong. Perhaps you forget what the pre-iPhone cellphone market was like.
Do people these days not even remember PDAs or is this willful blindness? Apple has some claim to being early on the scene wiith hanheld computers but not with the iPhone.
"The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity."
Bullshit.
The iPhone may not be unique anymore, but when it was released, it was groundbreaking. It can be argued forever that Apple did not 'invent' multitouch [1, 2], didn't invent rounded rectangle, a grid of application icons ... etc. but they were the first ones to democratize it.
The iPhone was the first device to truly have 'thought through' how a touch-only device should work for a variety of tasks. There are lots of interesting projects that never move beyond research labs; I think Apple pushed the whole industry and research community forward with the iPhone.
To look at a product as a sum of its parts is often very very misleading. That's true for the iPhone. Of course other manufacturers had to start using similar technology, but that doesn't mean that they could or should copy interaction paradigms, design details (right down to the final retail packaging). AND most other manufacturers managed to use the same technology and NOT cross the line between inspiration and ripping-off. I cannot fathom how one can look at the Samsung products in question and not see that they were more than inspired.
"You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency."
Bullshit.
Simple is hard. Yes, that's an official Apple line, but anyone who's ever written a piece of code will attest to this fact. Removing cruft, making things cleaner, starting over ... is often the most difficult step. Apple clearly did the same with its products, it's clear from the prototypes it presented in court.
Also, there are umpteen examples of how things can be made simpler and better than what Apple offers. At a software level, WebOS does (did) a great job of figuring out multi-tasking on mobile devices, Android is fantastic with notifications and cross-app communication (intents).
Without getting into lawyer-esque conversations, just take a look at the Samsung products in question ... you should get what this case is about (for now, just focus on things that meet the eye ... literally)
[1] Flexible Machine Interface (Nimish Mehta , University of Toronto). Published in 1982.
[2] Fingerworks (1998). A company founded by Wayne Westerman and John Elias. I think Westerman went on to work for Apple.
For multi-touch history, check this out http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up against. In fact, this effect will only concentrate even more as the physical nature of technology and innovation disappears as things get smaller and more concentrated.
With technology and design starting to crowd up against a barrier of physical form-factors, it becomes increasingly apparent that patenting and copyrighting should proportionally protect the change, the innovation, the added value; not the absolute.
The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity. There is nothing unique about straight lines, exact curvature, shininess, sharp edges, and uniformity. Apple simply OCDed the shit out of their products. I applaud their designs and their configuration of technology, but much of it is not sufficiently unique to warrant patenting or copyrighting.
Where do you draw the line, and will Apple (or any other corporations for that matter) be allowed to draw that line right around their interests, products, and designs in a self-serving manner...essentially corporate gerrymandering?
Tongue-in-cheek, so no need to tell me how stupid I am, but we may as well allow for the patent on anything that is different than what existed prior if we are going to allow patenting and copyrighting of what is defined by hardly more than the technological limitations. Should one be allowed to patent a tablet that is 5 mm thick because it is thinner than a 6 mm tablet?
When you patent fundamental constraints, you might as well patent and copyright going from point A to point B and sue everyone that doesn't go through point C to get to point B. You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency.