Does it really matter whether Samsung Apple copies or not?
The last few weeks, the Internet is seething with news of the legal opposition to Apple and Samsung. While the court is looking for an answer to the main question - has Samsung copied Apple’s development? - we take a unique opportunity to look behind the scenes of companies, studying internal documents, declassified for use in court. But there is another question that, in my opinion, is much more important for future innovations in the technology industry: regardless of whether Samsung really copied Apple or not, it might be worth allowing and even encouraging companies to copy from each other?
This question is particularly relevant in the context of the Apple vs Samsung process, because this is not the first time that Apple has accused other companies of copying. The famous lawsuit against Microsoft in the mid-90s is painfully reminiscent of the current one: “We created an innovative graphical user interface; Microsoft copied it; if our competitors copy our designs, we will not be able to continue innovating. ” That process Apple lost.
The most interesting thing that happened later.
Apple did not stop creating new things. On the contrary: they released iMac. Then Mac OS X (" Redmond, turn on your copiers! ") Then iPod. Then the iPhone. And finally, the iPad. If Apple really went to court to be able to continue innovating, it’s hard to resist the question: if copying is killing innovation, why didn't Apple stop moving forward after its product was copied? Copying did not stop and did not even slow down its progress. Rather, it sped it up. Apple did not have the opportunity to rest on its laurels; to remain a profitable company and to achieve the current position of a leader in the technology sector, they had to introduce new products as quickly as possible.
')
This point is worth considering in more detail in the broader context of intellectual property protection. This is what the book by Cal Raustian and Chris Springman, “The Economics of Copying: How Imitation Generates Innovation,” is mentioned in an excerpt from which was recently published in The Wall Street Journal. It is believed that progress will stop without copy protection. But, oddly enough, there are many examples where the industry open to copying flourished, instead of staying in development. Rastyala and Springman write: "Great inventions are often built on the basis of existing ones, and they needed freedom of copying." And this is true even for Apple, as evidenced by the letter from Apple's top manager Eddie Q in which, under the impression of the Samsung product, he proposes to make changes to the Apple tablet line.
Someone will call it copying. But I think this is an example of a perfectly functioning competitive market.
On the example of Apple, you can clearly see that even after losing the court and finding yourself without patent protection, you can continue innovation. And, in order not to be unfair to this company, it is worth remembering that it also suffered from patent claims of competitors, for example, Nokia recently sued her successfully.
In general, it often seems that corporations remember about patent protection when things are not going well in the market.
If Apple wins this process and forces Samsung to shut down deliveries or pay serious licensing fees, does anyone really believe that there will suddenly be more new products on the mobile device market, or will these devices become more accessible? And vice versa, if Samsung wins, does someone believe that Apple will suddenly stop developing new iPhones and iPads? That didn’t happen when Apple last time lost the trial!
It is not so difficult to see that a corporate battle in court to find out who is copying from whom is counterproductive. Many of these lawsuits speak of one thing: everyone is copying from each other anyway. Is there a better decision than a trial? Of course! Let it be better for companies to fight in a market where consumers, and not court, decide what is innovation and what is not. In this case, the best copy protection will not be litigation, and the acceleration of development to such an extent that competitors simply can not keep up. And this, in my opinion, is an ideal solution not only for consumers, but also for the innovators themselves.
This question is particularly relevant in the context of the Apple vs Samsung process, because this is not the first time that Apple has accused other companies of copying. The famous lawsuit against Microsoft in the mid-90s is painfully reminiscent of the current one: “We created an innovative graphical user interface; Microsoft copied it; if our competitors copy our designs, we will not be able to continue innovating. ” That process Apple lost.
The most interesting thing that happened later.
Apple did not stop creating new things. On the contrary: they released iMac. Then Mac OS X (" Redmond, turn on your copiers! ") Then iPod. Then the iPhone. And finally, the iPad. If Apple really went to court to be able to continue innovating, it’s hard to resist the question: if copying is killing innovation, why didn't Apple stop moving forward after its product was copied? Copying did not stop and did not even slow down its progress. Rather, it sped it up. Apple did not have the opportunity to rest on its laurels; to remain a profitable company and to achieve the current position of a leader in the technology sector, they had to introduce new products as quickly as possible.
')
This point is worth considering in more detail in the broader context of intellectual property protection. This is what the book by Cal Raustian and Chris Springman, “The Economics of Copying: How Imitation Generates Innovation,” is mentioned in an excerpt from which was recently published in The Wall Street Journal. It is believed that progress will stop without copy protection. But, oddly enough, there are many examples where the industry open to copying flourished, instead of staying in development. Rastyala and Springman write: "Great inventions are often built on the basis of existing ones, and they needed freedom of copying." And this is true even for Apple, as evidenced by the letter from Apple's top manager Eddie Q in which, under the impression of the Samsung product, he proposes to make changes to the Apple tablet line.
Someone will call it copying. But I think this is an example of a perfectly functioning competitive market.
On the example of Apple, you can clearly see that even after losing the court and finding yourself without patent protection, you can continue innovation. And, in order not to be unfair to this company, it is worth remembering that it also suffered from patent claims of competitors, for example, Nokia recently sued her successfully.
In general, it often seems that corporations remember about patent protection when things are not going well in the market.
If Apple wins this process and forces Samsung to shut down deliveries or pay serious licensing fees, does anyone really believe that there will suddenly be more new products on the mobile device market, or will these devices become more accessible? And vice versa, if Samsung wins, does someone believe that Apple will suddenly stop developing new iPhones and iPads? That didn’t happen when Apple last time lost the trial!
It is not so difficult to see that a corporate battle in court to find out who is copying from whom is counterproductive. Many of these lawsuits speak of one thing: everyone is copying from each other anyway. Is there a better decision than a trial? Of course! Let it be better for companies to fight in a market where consumers, and not court, decide what is innovation and what is not. In this case, the best copy protection will not be litigation, and the acceleration of development to such an extent that competitors simply can not keep up. And this, in my opinion, is an ideal solution not only for consumers, but also for the innovators themselves.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/149969/
All Articles