“They’ve all taken Apple’s side in a lawsuit that dates back to 2012 in which the creator of the iPhone accused Samsung of copying some of the smartphone’s technical features as well as its design. Fashion folks might know very little about software and coding, but they understand the importance of aesthetics,” Givhan writes. “And so in a friend-of-the-court brief, they extol the power and importance of design. As attorney Mark Davies, the brief’s counsel of record, noted in an interview: ‘It’s the design that sells the product.'”
MacDailyNews Note: The amicus brief in full in here.
“The fashion industry has grappled mightily with the problems of knockoffs and outright counterfeiting. Although the law recognizes some unique and iconic designs, the Council of Fashion Designers of America has tried unsuccessfully to lobby Capitol Hill for legislation that would extend greater copyright protections to clothing designs… Designers have recounted how distinctive handbags, for instance, have been reproduced lickety-split at bargain basement prices, cutting into their profits and, possibly, diluting the prestige of their brand,” Givhan writes. “Over the years, in an attempt to protect their work, fashion folks have essentially been arguing aesthetics: That dress looks like my dress. The Apple brief goes further. It argues that ‘Appearance becomes identified with the underlying functional features and with a particular level of product quality…’ It’s a line of thinking that raises an uncomfortable question: Does a consumer presume that a $200 copy of a dress is the same quality as the $2,000 original? If so, one could say that while fashion may win the battle on copying, it most certainly will have lost something far more valuable, which is the integrity of its wares. ”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The issue is knockoff companies stealing the work of others and profiting from it. It’s the same idea in clothing and handbags as it is in computers and smartphones.
Punish the thieves. Just because some people want to wear a designer dress or carry a designer handbag or tote a MacBook Pro or an iPhone on the cheap does not excuse the thieves who knocked off the original items and peddle knockoffs for their own profit. Otherwise there is no impetus for world-class designers to design or world-class innovators to innovate.
And, honey, we know your handbag is a “Lewis Voitton” and your “MacBook” is really a lousy HP Windoze PeeCee. You’re not fooling anybody.
The main reason why Samsung et al. were able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the unwitting (who are now finally waking up in droves, by the way, and upgrading to iPhones in ever-increasing numbers) in much the same way as how Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.
Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and 100+ of the world’s top designers side with Apple in Samsung patent case – August 4, 2016
Apple to U.S. Supreme Court: Samsung stole our patents, should end its appeals and finally pay up – August 1, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Samsung’s appeal of Apple design patent case on October 11th – July 14, 2016
U.S. DOJ asks Supreme Court to overturn ruling that favored Apple over Samsung’s iPhone copying – June 9, 2016
Apple suggests Federal Circuit panel violated U.S. Constitution in patent fight with Samsung – March 30, 2016
Supreme Court to hear Samsung appeal in Apple patent case – March 21, 2016
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]