Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Banned! CaptainVonDoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.30.12
    Posts
    1,064
    Last Online

    01.09.13 @ 04:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default HBR: Forget Patents. World a better place if we let Samsung copy Apple

    "As the Apple-Samsung trial shifts to the hands of the jury, Harvard Business Review's James Allworth asks whether we should even prosecute copying in the first place."

    http://gizmodo.com/5936518/who-cares...g-copied-apple

  2. #2
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,892
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 07:25 AM
    Likes
    3,508
    Liked 18,133 Times in 8,957 Posts

    Default

    Yeah, as our research and development exenditures already are going through the floor, let's not companies that actually do invest in R&D not be able to patent and protect those inventions and innovations.

    Yeah, that's smart.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  3. #3
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    10.12.09
    Posts
    1,872
    Last Online

    05.15.16 @ 10:48 PM
    Likes
    5
    Liked 164 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    I have not read the article, but interestingly, here's an article I wrote on this very subject:

    (Legal disclaimer: Any similarity between my article and others is purely coincidental)

    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?

    As the Apple-Samsung trial shifts to the hands of the jury, Harvard Business Review's James Allworth asks whether we should even prosecute copying in the first place.

    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. Instead: they came out with the iMac. Then OS X ("Redmond, start your photocopiers"). Then the iPod. Then the iPhone. And now, most recently, the iPad. Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it's hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn't Apple stop innovating last time they were copied? Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all. If anything, it only seemed to accelerate it. Apple wasn't able to rest on its laurels; to return to profitability, and to take the mantle they hold today of one of the technology industry's largest companies, they had to innovate as fast as they could.

    This point is worth considering more deeply in the debate over intellectual property protection. An excerpt from Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman's book, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation, that ran in last weekend's Wall Street Journal, made exactly this point. The ingoing assumption for most folks when looking at industries is: without protection from copying, innovation stops. However, and somewhat counter-intuitively, Raustiala and Sprigman show that rather than stifling industries, there are plenty of examples where industries actually thrive because they are so open to copying. As they say: "Great innovations often build on existing ones - and that requires the freedom to copy." Which even seems to be true at Apple - see this email from Apple exec Eddy Cue, advocating a change to Apple's lineup of tablet products... as a result of him trying out a product that Samsung had released on to the market.

    Some might say copying. But to me, it sounds like a perfectly functioning competitive market.

    I've used Apple as the example here because it's illustrative in showing how innovation hasn't been stifled over time even when the patent system hasn't ruled in their favor as a patent owner. But to be fair to Apple, they too have suffered plenty in their quest to innovate when they weren't necessarily the first mover with the necessary patents under their control - a recent example being Nokia's lawsuit against them regarding the iPhone.

    Too often, it seems that companies fall back on the broken patent system when they can't compete in the marketplace.

    If Apple ends up winning this case against Samsung - and either stops Samsung from releasing their phones and tablets to the market, or charges them a hefty license fee to do so - does anyone really believe that the market will suddenly become more innovative, or that devices will suddenly become more affordable? Similarly, if Samsung wins, do you really believe that Apple will suddenly slow its aggressive development of the iPhone and iPad? It's certainly not what happened last time they lost one of these cases.

    Now, if you're with me so far, then I don't think it's a leap to suggest that having these companies duke it out in court over "who might have copied who" is counterproductive. All these lawsuits flying around suggest that everyone is already copying each other, anyway. A better solution? Let's have these companies solely focused on duking it out in the marketplace - where consumers, not courtrooms, make the decisions about innovation. In such a world, the best defense against copying isn't lawsuits, but rather, to innovate at such a rate that your competition can't copy you fast enough. That, to me, sounds like an ideal situation not just for consumers - but for the real innovators, too.

  4. #4
    Banned! CaptainVonDoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.30.12
    Posts
    1,064
    Last Online

    01.09.13 @ 04:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default


  5. #5
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,643
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 07:25 AM
    Likes
    571
    Liked 2,229 Times in 1,124 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddE View Post
    I have not read the article, but interestingly, here's an article I wrote on this very subject:

    (Legal disclaimer: Any similarity between my article and others is purely coincidental)

    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?

    As the Apple-Samsung trial shifts to the hands of the jury, Harvard Business Review's James Allworth asks whether we should even prosecute copying in the first place.

    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. Instead: they came out with the iMac. Then OS X ("Redmond, start your photocopiers"). Then the iPod. Then the iPhone. And now, most recently, the iPad. Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it's hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn't Apple stop innovating last time they were copied? Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all. If anything, it only seemed to accelerate it. Apple wasn't able to rest on its laurels; to return to profitability, and to take the mantle they hold today of one of the technology industry's largest companies, they had to innovate as fast as they could.

    This point is worth considering more deeply in the debate over intellectual property protection. An excerpt from Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman's book, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation, that ran in last weekend's Wall Street Journal, made exactly this point. The ingoing assumption for most folks when looking at industries is: without protection from copying, innovation stops. However, and somewhat counter-intuitively, Raustiala and Sprigman show that rather than stifling industries, there are plenty of examples where industries actually thrive because they are so open to copying. As they say: "Great innovations often build on existing ones - and that requires the freedom to copy." Which even seems to be true at Apple - see this email from Apple exec Eddy Cue, advocating a change to Apple's lineup of tablet products... as a result of him trying out a product that Samsung had released on to the market.

    Some might say copying. But to me, it sounds like a perfectly functioning competitive market.

    I've used Apple as the example here because it's illustrative in showing how innovation hasn't been stifled over time even when the patent system hasn't ruled in their favor as a patent owner. But to be fair to Apple, they too have suffered plenty in their quest to innovate when they weren't necessarily the first mover with the necessary patents under their control - a recent example being Nokia's lawsuit against them regarding the iPhone.

    Too often, it seems that companies fall back on the broken patent system when they can't compete in the marketplace.

    If Apple ends up winning this case against Samsung - and either stops Samsung from releasing their phones and tablets to the market, or charges them a hefty license fee to do so - does anyone really believe that the market will suddenly become more innovative, or that devices will suddenly become more affordable? Similarly, if Samsung wins, do you really believe that Apple will suddenly slow its aggressive development of the iPhone and iPad? It's certainly not what happened last time they lost one of these cases.

    Now, if you're with me so far, then I don't think it's a leap to suggest that having these companies duke it out in court over "who might have copied who" is counterproductive. All these lawsuits flying around suggest that everyone is already copying each other, anyway. A better solution? Let's have these companies solely focused on duking it out in the marketplace - where consumers, not courtrooms, make the decisions about innovation. In such a world, the best defense against copying isn't lawsuits, but rather, to innovate at such a rate that your competition can't copy you fast enough. That, to me, sounds like an ideal situation not just for consumers - but for the real innovators, too.
    Sure, Apple kept innovating, but guess who was rewarded during the decade that the GUI being discussed was important? Microsoft. Who put in the work? Apple.

    It's not about copying concepts, it's about copying proprietary technology. As a business, it's much easier to sit back and let other people flush their R&D money down the toilet and then snatch it up like a predator when something useful hits the market. If you encourage that type of behavior, it will end up hurting the efficiency of the market long term. For every failed copyright lawsuit that shows continued innovation, there are hundreds of upheld decisions that are actually defending the concept. If you take away that defense, then you'll really see the results.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  6. #6
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    10.12.09
    Posts
    1,872
    Last Online

    05.15.16 @ 10:48 PM
    Likes
    5
    Liked 164 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    Sure, Apple kept innovating, but guess who was rewarded during the decade that the GUI being discussed was important? Microsoft. Who put in the work? Apple.

    It's not about copying concepts, it's about copying proprietary technology. As a business, it's much easier to sit back and let other people flush their R&D money down the toilet and then snatch it up like a predator when something useful hits the market. If you encourage that type of behavior, it will end up hurting the efficiency of the market long term. For every failed copyright lawsuit that shows continued innovation, there are hundreds of upheld decisions that are actually defending the concept. If you take away that defense, then you'll really see the results.
    You didn't catch my joke, then?

    I copied his entire article and claimed it as my own.

    I agree with you. R&D investment dollars ought to have legal protection, especialy when something hits the market. Otherwise, the field will become full of reverse engineers, rather than innovators.

  7. #7
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,643
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 07:25 AM
    Likes
    571
    Liked 2,229 Times in 1,124 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddE View Post
    You didn't catch my joke, then?

    I copied his entire article and claimed it as my own.

    I agree with you. R&D investment dollars ought to have legal protection, especialy when something hits the market. Otherwise, the field will become full of reverse engineers, rather than innovators.
    Yep...whew...over the head. Didn't catch it
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  8. #8
    Banned! CaptainVonDoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.30.12
    Posts
    1,064
    Last Online

    01.09.13 @ 04:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Apple Patent Battles Create Lawyer Boon At $1,200 An Hour

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...0-an-hour.html

  9. #9
    Banned! CaptainVonDoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.30.12
    Posts
    1,064
    Last Online

    01.09.13 @ 04:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Jury rules Samsung infringed on Apple patents

    The nine-person jury deciding the trial between the two technology giants has reached a verdict. Apple has won on almost all patent claims read so far. And Samsung will have a hefty bill to pay.


    Total damages owed by Samsung: $1.05 billion

    http://live.cnet.com/Event/Apple_vs_Samsung_verdict

  10. #10
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,892
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 07:25 AM
    Likes
    3,508
    Liked 18,133 Times in 8,957 Posts

    Default

    Good.

    Come up with your own ideas, or pay to use Apple's for a while.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  11. #11
    Banned! CaptainVonDoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.30.12
    Posts
    1,064
    Last Online

    01.09.13 @ 04:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default


  12. #12
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    10.12.09
    Posts
    1,872
    Last Online

    05.15.16 @ 10:48 PM
    Likes
    5
    Liked 164 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainVonDoom View Post
    Looks like they were ripping off Blackberry before Apple.

  13. #13
    Eye suffacozza YEWW! Goo's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.01.00
    Age
    46
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    12,866
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Me Wise Magic
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 05:34 PM
    Likes
    29
    Liked 65 Times in 36 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    I think some of the patent cases included things like icons, and connecter plugs as well, and were pretty obvious. I saw one example of a samsung connector that was basically identical to the apple one - but black. I get that if you go to a touch phone and can remove all the keyboard, you are essentially going to have some pretty similar looking products, but it went a bit beyond that.

    Samsung opened a 'Samsung store' here this week:



    While it's certainly true Apple don't hold the patent on blue shirts or displaying things on tables, You would have to wonder a bit about how much thought Samsung put into this particular venture other than 'Hey that seems to work well for them. Let's do it.'

    Competition is great - and drives the industry forward. Would be even better though if R & D was a higher priority for all concerned
    A little zen....... Headed your way.......

  14. #14
    Baluchitherium Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.01.99
    Age
    47
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,239
    Favorite VH Song

    Humans Being
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 05:19 AM
    Likes
    470
    Liked 741 Times in 408 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainVonDoom View Post
    When you become successful - you will be copied. The trick to being successful, is to continue to innovate - come up with a new design that will redefine the definition of that category....as they did with iPhone - and it's become the obvious industry standard.

    While I agree wit the verdict - I'm hopeful Apple doesn't sit back...
    Winners come and go; legends are forever.

  15. #15
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,108
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.14.17 @ 07:24 AM
    Likes
    1,314
    Liked 6,691 Times in 3,711 Posts

    Default

    this will be in the courts forever. It's not like this one decision in the only one impacting the two companies - they're suing each other all over the world. In South Korea recently both were found guilty of stealing from each other. No shock that an American court would side with Apple (an American company) and a Korean court would side with Samsung. They'll need to come to an out of court agreement between them.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Samsung Super Bowl Ad - 'Cafe Wha?' guy?
    By MWood919 in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02.06.12, 02:34 AM
  2. patents
    By killahound22 in forum Guitar Room
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03.03.10, 11:26 PM
  3. The 22 Worst Place Names in the World
    By vhrocker in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06.06.07, 04:09 PM
  4. Eddie's patents
    By Monster's Balls in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04.05.02, 04:35 AM
  5. Favorite place in the world
    By seenbad in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02.27.01, 01:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •