“The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit,” James Allworth writes for Harvard Business Review. “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?”
“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 [the Mac OS, by Microsoft]? Being copied didn’t stop or slow their ability to innovate at all,” Allworth writes. “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.”
MacDailyNews Take: Allworth’s “logic” fails to take into account the extraordinary Steve Jobs. The Steve-less Apple floundered nearly to death in the face of Microsoft’s contractual ability to rip-off Apple’s Mac innovations ad infinitum. Not until Steve Jobs returned did Apple begin to innovate again.
Allworth writes, “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.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: No, we’re not with you. Because Apple’s not copying Samsung. And because we understand the very simple concept of design patents vs. standards-essential patents.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
It’s true…who cares? We all get better products
You mean that non-Apple product owners get better second-rate products than they would’ve had they not been knockoffs of Apple’s patented IP.
Who cares? Apple Inc. and millions upon millions of AAPL shareholders. That’s who cares.
Really? Microsoft copied Mac OS in producing Windows — and that’s a better product than Mac OS? Is Samsung’s iLookAlike better than that which they copied?
Suppose we have a benevolent dictator. We all get better policies, but we get a worse system. One that can and will be abused in the future.
If you think Samsung being forced to change design, which has already happened as a result of legal action, produced a “better” Samsung tablet, then your idea of “better” would be quite different from the market’s, if you look at the results.
I may be, of course, falling prey to a ‘troll’ simply out for some fun in possible a boring day for him/her. In either case, I would assume you have never created and taken to market any project that suffers from being replicated.
Making a very real commitment of my time, energy and financial resources to innovate has never been, in my experience, so others can copy it to ‘make things better.”
+1
Every time I hear someone argue that it is ok to rip off Someone else’s designs, I know I am hearing from someone with no creativity, no originality, no honor, no sense of FairPlay, and certainly no experience with having an original idea.
Instead of saying all that, why don’t just ask him to imagine how identity theft feels?
Lets just copy his articles and repost them with our name on it. Well a bit embarrassing for us isn’t it
Wrong!! You stupid ass.
It’s not about “…getting better products.”
It’s called getting a ‘knock-off’. A second-rate, cheap-assed, wanna-be, 3rd world product because some people are either too cheap, too stupid, or both to get the real thing.
Umm, yeah. I like drinking this cold donkey-piss… tastes like real beer.
Much in the same way that Microsoft users have behaved since the mid 80’s. “Oh… it’s just as good as a Mac”. No, it’s not, and it never has been. You’ve just been taught to believe that it has.
You’re either delusional, or a troll. If the former, get professional help. If the latter, go back to your bridge.
Why it Matters…
because Apple was RIPED OFF before and with a VENGEANCE plotted to regain its innovating glory to NEVER be RIPPED OFF AGAIN.
That is why Apple is where it is today; due to the return of Jobs and his view to innovate with perfectionism and to regain the Apple glory. Protection is of most importance.
Most consumers won’t particularly care because the overriding factor is cheapness and a hate for Apple. I have friends who will not buy Apple because ‘the iPhone is too popular’, whatever that means. Some won’t buy Apple on the principle that they (the company) are seen as being too arrogant and their products are used by hipsters and poseurs.
I’m not particularly bothered why the haters hate but they represent a substantial number of people, surprisingly enough. Not enough though to dethrone Apple as the king of the consumer hill but significant enough as not to care if Samsung copied Apple.
You have some dumb@$$ friends. People buy iPhones (and other Apple products) because they are the best out there!
If your friends (probably immature teenagers) don’t believe in Apple products because they supposedly signify a certain type of people or whatever had a lot to learn about technology.
On top of that, if they are trying to be an “individual” or “against society” is a trend in itself so they are not different – POSERS!
You are forgetting that the majority of people use Windows, and so in their minds all computing is hard, and similarly, smartphones are all the same — they don’t know that Samsung is better or worse than iPhone, they bought it based upon recommendations of sales people and/or friends. There are a lot of people who hate Apple and will give carefully guided biased opinions.
I have aunts and uncles (far away) who are buying Samsung phones and liking Samsung on Facebook. They are anything but immature. They are value-conscious and BOGO offer matters. They see the whole imitator/copier/innovation dispute as immaterial.
Yea and they will really love thoes Samsung cheap knockoffs when all of thoes features are taken away due to IP violation. And then the immaterial nature of purchasing cheap will really byte them in the ass.
Save a Buck and you get what you deserve “JUNK”. And less features without updates.
Really worth it , NOT.
Im just stunned that BLN has friends.
I’m BLN’s bestest pal in the whole wide world.
Uh, that would be his right nut.
sounds right.
that took you two days to come up with?
it took two days to stumble across it, yes. I don’t live here.
fine stumbling.
I’m thinking I ought to take that article, and put my name on it instead of Mr. Allworth’s name, and call it innovation!
“I’m sorry Mr. Allworth, but there is no plagiarism any longer; it’s now called innovation!” Besides, the guy who stole your article is better looking than you are, and knows more powerful people, so why shouldn’t he get the benefit of the by-line?
WELL SAID – dslarsen +20,000,000
Love this!!!!
I care.
Hard work, ingenuity and innovation are supposed to pay off in our capitalistic society. This is a question that ponders the very nature of the fabric of our culture and is one that everyone should care about.
Forget the court cases, rhetoric and legal posturing. The simple matter at hand is whether a company should profit and be paid for the popularity of their product after pouring years of blood, sweat and cash into developing a game changing technology. Frankly, if there’s no incentive to do that, because every other company under the sun has the right to replicate and pilfer the profits of that work, then eventually there will be no Apple’s (or any other company) bothering to create something new and unique.
I’m so tired of Google/Motorola/Samsung apologists cooking up reasons why it’s OK to copy Apple in the interest of competition. The simple fact of the matter is that before the iPhone came along, smart phones were by-and-large extremely limited and a pain in the rear to use. After the iPhone, every subsequent product has pretty much mimicked the overall design, look, feel and functionality of it. It’s disgraceful.
“It’s disgraceful.”
No. It’s progress. The bigger picture is Apple’s impact on the world.
Cry me a river, if you want, but too much good has come from Apple’s “Hard work, ingenuity and innovation” to put the genie back in the bottle.
Litigation is necessary to establish precedence and provenance. In the meantime, others can change the law if they like, but their reasoning will bring them to this case and others like it, if we are to preserve intellectual property rights.
I smell the ramblings of an educated idiot in this article.
Steve Jobs is not that “extraordinary”. He is the guy who hired John Sculley and put Tim Cook in the CEO slot. Tim Cook is the guy who hired John Browett to head up Retail. So Steve Jobs is in reality a major screw up who just happened to get a couple of product ideas right. But what he did with Tim Cook and thus with Browett in just pure bozo incompetence. So, stop with the extraordinary stuff.
Kent,
Look at Apple: Sales numbers, profits, growth, customer loyalty, fearless innovation.
Your opinion has no relevance to the above and therefore, Steve Jobs was extraordinary. He was human, was flawed but his accomplishments are amazing and unrivaled. Amazing.
Kent’s a troll and has returned to his cave or is trying to push keving off the bridge.
Kent Ramsay is not a troll. He follows MDN closely and as a result he knows that the big issues facing Apple are John Sculley still being allowed to live and breathe, and John Browett, who has run Apple Retail into the ground to the point where it is dragging Apple into the gutter.
Now it appears you’re trying to back out of a baseless accusation about S. Jobs ( in which you appoint yourself more knowledgable then the market, Forbes, Fortune, endless others acknowledging his skills).
By using John Sculley, history now, and Browett to gather “isn’t he a jerk” agreement, your attempt to cover a totally unfounded criticism appears a not very skilled effort to somehow save face. Samsung loves this kind of logic. Read transcripts of the trial.
You are wrong. I am simply repeating what I learned from MDN.
And what was that…
Poor Bullshit is seen for what it is Kent.
Look.
And Kent, your history is way off, snippets and half truths don’t make a complete picture Son.
“snippets and half truths”? – you mean like goofy stories sourced by anonymous “tipsters”?
The story is lame from beginning to end. MDN is pushing it because it needs something to whine about to generate hits during the lazy days of summer. Apple is becoming boring because it is just a well run company executing most of the time on all gears. If it such a real story then MDN should do the right thing and push for Tim Cook to be fired by the Board. The Board could pin it on “tipsters”.
Loooo-ooo-ooo-oozzerrrr
Authors, musicians, artist and engineers work to make things that are new and different. If they can’t monetize their work, how are they supposed to survive to make the next thing. Being inspired by others is great. Stealing will never be acceptable. the excuse that the patent system is a disaster is NOT good enough.
I guess the craptastic stylings of populist anti-Apple hitwhores has infected the Harvard Business Review. Apple innovates because that’s what Apple does. An environment of rampant copying won’t deter them, but that doesn’t make it right.
Regardless of the outcome, this will not hurt Apple. Who it will hurt are the thousands of small entrepreneurs who are thinking of doing something groundbreaking. The message that a wrist-slap for Samsung will send that group is “anything you do is up for grabs”. Even if these companies can “lawyer up” – and that’s a big if – why bother? Your IP is only worth the time-to-market advantage you have before some shameless copier rips off the thousands of hours of work that the courts won’t help you defend, so take the safe route and make something that is only marginally iterative of what came before it.
Watch innovation slow to a crawl and then wonder why people aren’t pushing the envelope anymore.
Idiot.
He doesn’t care because he hasn’t had an innovative thought in his life, probably doesn’t know any innovative people either.
Why don’t we all just go out and copy $20 bills and spend them?????
Apple almost do not survive. Those of us that were with Apple back when MS stole windows remember the years and years of beleaguered Apple predictions that followed. Apple was the best then yet almost died while MS grew to the largest company in the world on the stolen product. It’s taken Apple almost 20 years to finally become the largest today.
Wonder how the Harvard Business Review feels about people copying their work and publishing it without attribution?
Venture capitalists ought to be screaming about the prospect of Samsung walking away with a “wrist slap” or — even worse — the equivalent of a free pass.
It used to be that a good idea that got off the ground might become one of two things: 1) A company that takes off (such as Google) or 2) a company that is able to license its designs or be acquired, thereby rewarding the inventors and early investors.
If there is no incentive for these startups because the big companies can just take what they want and say, “You can’t patent rectangles!” then the pace of innovation will slow down quite a lot.
To me, it’s madness that Google/Samsung/HTC/and all the others might get away with this.
I hope Apple has a few people in a room reverse engineering Google’s search methods because if this is allowed to stand then that should be the very first market Apple enters next.
If Samsung wins, Samsung’s reverse engineered circuit diagrams and chips AND google’s search algorithms and cloud architecture should be posted as open source projects for all to learn, build on and earn money from.
If the sun comes up tomorrow it ought to be reverse engineered and given away for free. Oh wait it’s already free.
If Samsung wins you should STFU.
I created a product a few years ago, a medical alert system. It had a radio pendant for remote activation. But this was different. The pendant could receive as well as transmit, so the user could be notified that his emergency was being acted on. Last week I discovered that another company just a few miles from me has come out with a pendant for their home automation & security system, and it has the same capability. I can’t do anything about it since the pendant wasn’t patented, but just the same I feel like I’ve been robbed.
Obviously I don’t think ideas should be a free-for-all.
Traitors to America, its people, its lifestyle, its country.
Google should pay and also Samsung.
So if i copy his article and claim it as mine he should have no problem i am just making him better.
You know, I could do a much better job at my work – and support my local economy – if I was allowed to steel money from the bank.
Steeling, and illegally coping to profit (and take market share away from) is the same thing.
I hope you iron-out your steeling problems, you deserve a metal for your amazincing forgitude.
This point of view bogglesy mind. How can you expect true innovation without protecting the resulting economic rewards?
Some cultures seem to see nothing wrong with copying. Have you noticed the cars KIA/Hundai have been putting out? Next time you spot a beautiful new BMW, Mercedes, Bentley or even Honda, look closer. Check the badge. They are all being copied and sold for a much lower price. With honor at home I expect.
I can’t believe this bozo worked at Apple in “strategy”, whatever that is.
Is this some sort of revenge hit article or something?
So if we were to implement Allworth’s circuitous logic, then who would innovators (like Apple) copy? Let’s also remember that Apple failed to exist from 1985-1997, so his example doesn’t jive in this case. His logic doesn’t fly- companies who spend billions of dollars and countless man-hours on truly innovative products need to be protected from thieves like Samsung. In the past, IMO, companies were too quick to settle out of court, and thus the resultant precedent dictated this standard of action (or non-action) for years to come. I applaud Apple for finally standing up for their IP and the people who created it, and in effect bucking this ridiculous precedent.
Sorry James you are an idiot.
Allowing companies to simply ripp off other peoples innovation is helping innovation how again?
Yeah, I thought so, you are an idiot!
Who cares …
Apple didn’t invent cell phones
Apple didn’t invent computers
Apple didn’t invent operating systems
What did Apple invent here? Oh the iOS?
But this is about “Trade Dress”
This isn’t about a software product or a music or video …
They all, as I’ve said before, have copied and used technologies and capabilities that they didn’t invent. It’s a very good mashup of those technologies, grant it, … but I don’t believe it should stop others from doing similar things, and trying to go one better to distinguish themselves.
“They all, as I’ve said before, have copied and used technologies and capabilities that they didn’t invent. It’s a very good mashup of those technologies, grant it, … but I don’t believe it should stop others from doing similar things, and trying to go one better to distinguish themselves.”
Yes, companies have used ‘technologies and capabilities’ before, but Apple patented their tech. Samsung used patented tech, and it benefitted them- hugely.
And the rest of your argument is just silly. The thought and R&D that Apple put into developing the iPhone and iPad, which covers everything from the physical form factor that fits ‘perfectly into ones hand’, to a total touch interface with icons designed to fit perfectly to the average finger, to the smooth flow of pages when pushed, to the total touch interface- all of this took years to develop, and NOBODY came up with it before. You’re right, Apple didn’t invent electricity or circuit boards, but they have an uncanny ability to piece everything together- an ability that apparently nobody else in the tech world, including Samsung, Microsoft, Google, HTC, etc had, until the iPhone came out at least.
You call the iOS ‘trade dress’, but everybody else in the tech world calls it ‘breakthrough’. Android wouldn’t exist in it’s current incarnation without iOS (and if you think that Android wasn’t heavily influenced by iOS, then why didn’t Googld stick with their original OS- one that was very Blackberry-like?).
Nice try, bad argument.
You’ve got very good points. I wasn’t calling iOS ‘trade dress’. This whole Apple lawsuit isn’t about “tech” it is about ‘trade dress’. They’re not fighting over who made the cellular card or the wifi card or the cpu or motherboard. They are fighting over non-tech things that Samsung may have made similar. They are look and feel things. No one is allowed to come close to looking and feeling like what Apple has done. Even if a lot of it existing before.
Apple was very good at recognizing that everything fell into place with existing technologies and capabilities both in electronics and in the manufacturing processes … Forward looking? No just what’s possible right now. Bleeding edge? Maybe. Or like putting a Radio and a Television in the same console … like many years ago … but a lot smaller ,,, like I said – with the currently available technology and manufacturing capabilities. “We make iPod … can we put it into a cell phone?” Sure. Are CPU small enough to put a computer with the iPod and Cell phone? Sure.
Did Samsung steal HOW to do that too? No. Maybe the idea … but not how to actually do it.
Would we have arrived at this type of thing without Apple? I happen to think so. Maybe not the exact same way some silly things rubber band spring back and forth … but this type of systems was coming one way or the other.
The fact still remains- Samsung and others (Google, Microsoft, etc) saw big potential gains in what Apple had brought to the market- so much so that it’s very arguable (and apparent to me) that Google, and Samsung by extension, would NOT have had the success in the mobile market had it not been for Apple’s R&D. Just imagine what the market would have looked like had Apple not been blatantly ripped off- they had a breakthrough product in the iPhone and another in the iPad, and it wasn’t just based on aesthetics, it was based on the fact that it was a pure mobile device, with apps (the ‘killer app’ being the phone- watch Steve Jobs’ keynote again), store, etc. It was the whole integrated ecosystem that Apple created, along with a device that was ‘perfect’ as a mobile device in every way- look, feel, functionality. So much so, that they applied for patents on their tech and were awarded such patents.
So bleeding edge? Absolutely! They’ve introduced a new paradigm to the tech world and people are eating it up. When Sony introduced the Walkman, would anyone have sat back and said ‘it’s just a portable radio’? Yeah, probably- and they would be dead wrong. Forward looking? Yep- at least a couple of years ahead of the whole tech industry, which is a lifetime in tech. The only option that the other tech biggies thought they had was to copy Apple- THAT’s how far ahead Apple was and is. The only company who is even attempting to do their own thing is Microsoft, and look how long it’s taking one of the largest tech companies in the world to mimic what Apple has already mastered. So even by utilizing ‘the currently available technology and manufacturing capabilities’, Apple created an entire market, which is light years ahead of the rest of the industry. So your point about the current state of things is a red herring- maybe Apple didn’t introduce the tele-porter (yet!), but I’m sure they would have leveraged that tech better than anyone in the industry- THAT’s the genius of Apple and SJ, and that’s what consumers and other tech companies are clamoring for.
As for your last paragraph, we’ll never know if we would have arrived at the same thing- Google and Samsung decided to put their R&D dollars into copying Apple instead of coming up with something on their own. If had just leveraged the current tech and capabilities on it’s own, and introduced it’s own ideas to the market, then we MAY have seen bigger and better things. But they didn’t, and they missed an opportunity to truly compete in an open market, and consumers MAY have lost out big time. May Apple continue to innovate…
So is Google in cahoots with Samsung on what Samsung has allegedly done? I mean what did Google copy? I know they are heavily involved in and bought Android … but also that the Android OS is an Open Source project. Did Google or the Open Source project copy the GUI of Apple and put it into Android – or who did that? And they would have had to independently develop this GUI – it’s not even the same OS (Apple is iOS which is trimmed down modified Mac OS X … which is Unix with Next extensions to it) … so they didn’t blatantly copy source code … or did they? Linux and Unix in general have a lot of Open Source desktop GUI’s available for them – developed by different people.
What I’m trying to wrap my head around is why everyone is so mad at Google as well?
Thanks!
Google developed the current iteration of Android after Eric Schmidt showed Google what Apple was working on. Prior to that, Android looked like a Blackberry knock-off (did you see the pictures posted by MDN?). Therefore, Samsung benefitted from the iOS knock-off by adopting Google’s ‘open-source’ (wrong again) OS, but took it a step further and blatantly ripped off Apples patented industrial design and interface.
Android is based on Linux- so what? Do you really think people know or care about that? Oracle-Sun showed copied source code from Java in Android- lawsuits still pending.
Google clearly ‘switched gears’ mid development of Android as soon as they saw what Apple was doing- thanks to Eric Schmidt. That’s why people are angry with Google.
Wow … what an impressive career that Schmidt guy has had. And one of (the only) person to become a billionaire on stocks that wasn’t a founding father of Google. And was on Apples board … after already working at Google. Sounds like a repeat of Zerox Parc … “We had this neighbor that left the door open … and you went in to steal a TV, only I got their first” (Pirates of Silicon Valley.)
But I have to ask … isn’t the open source Linux also copying “Windows”‘ish and Macintosh’ish stuff with all the desktops that are available (KDE, Gnome, …) for that?
So did the guy actually give source code out from Apple? Or did they arrive at 4 icons in a row and the same look and feel by their own programming efforts?
So why isn’t Apple suing Mr. Schmidt? Or did they give away the store like Zerox did?
(Microsoft buying the first DOS “We think, umm we can take your DOS and ummm mess with it … and maybe resell it.”)
I’m getting the Android Open Source …
To learn how to get the source and how to build it …
* I already build / cross-compile other open-source things on Linux for embedded devices and such. Just interested in being able to do this … and look at the source code.
(Have shell / ssh access to my iPhone 4 … and love it.)
Wow- your recall of history needs some work. Rather than basing it on The Pirates of Silicon Valley, why don’t you do a bit more research into the Xerox PARC thing. I’ll spare you the details- you seem like a bright person, I’m sure you’ll be able to find the info.
Sue Mr. Schmidt for what? Revealing secrets? And that will help Apple how? Right- nada. He was quickly released from Apple’s board shortly after SJ found out what he had done.
Linux has been brought to task for ‘borrowed code’ before, as has Windows and virtually every other OS, including OS X. It’s difficult to protect something when you have no ownership. Nice strawman argument though.
But as far as this conversation goes, you’re clearly trolling, or just being an idiot. Apple brought to market a patented device, ie they had ownership to various technologies that they spent time and money on- you know, like if you produced an app with the ‘open-source’ Android (do some research) OS, and patented your stuff, then someone came along and said,
‘that’s a good idea, I think I’ll do the same thing, but just crack this persons code and put my name on it’. That would be the fair thing to do, right? And that’s best for the consumers, right? Of course it is- in your little fantasy land. You can ruminate on that a bit, maybe you’ll finally mature enough to understand.
BTW, it’s Xerox, not Zerox
Like I said, do some research on ‘open-source’ before you label Android an open-source OS.
Why don’t you cut to the chase … and tell me what’s not open source about it? I have the SDK on Windows right now. I was trying to get it on Ubuntu Linux but my VM was running out of disk space.
What source can I not get? Supposedly I can build all of the versions including 4.1 the latests. And it can load on actual hardware or their emulator that comes with it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman
You may search for MANY other sources, but this will get you started. It’s no more ‘open’ than OSX’s Darwin. I’m not arguing for or against open-source software, but Google is being deceptive at best here.
Well, I had a company that made a really cool and innovative product. Notice I said had. We never had the additional hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around to go after the copiers. Cost us millions, and eventually the company. Could compete with the scumbags knocking us off, not testing and complying with standards we created with our product. The would sell it cheaper and reap the harvest of our efforts and hard work in R&D. GO GET THEM F_CKERS APPLE! I like seeing a company have the means and power to do what we couldn’t. To all the copiers, YOUR A SCUMBAG!
By his logic we should all be able to copy any articles in the Harvard Business Review and publish them as our own.
wouldn’t that stimulate creativity as people tried harder to create original stuff before someone rips them off.
As co author of Dealing with People You Can’t Stand, we found chapters from our book copied word for word and republished on Amazon as kindle books.
“if copying stops innovation, why didn’t Apple stop innovating last time they were copied [the Mac OS, by Microsoft]?”
Apple isn’t the one that stops innovating, you idiot, it’s every other tech company that stops innovating because they’re allowed to copy Apple.
I thought the Harvard Business Review had standards. No?
You’re so moronic I don’t even feel bad about taking that mean cheap shot at your surname.
We live in a world today where no one gives a damn about anyone else other than number ‘1’ and in the world of industry the standards are now even lower still. The moral high ground is seen as something which applies to the proverbial ‘loser’ and the law is meaningless where it needs to count. Kudos to Apple Inc. for taking the ‘Samsung’s to task in court but I fear that even if the company wins its case the copiers will still find yet another way to cheat and steal without fear of retribution.
@janekg – but in this lawsuit they are talking about aesthetics … not about Samsung downloading and reverse engineering their software. And little things like the way documents and pictures (and even the current icon screen, I guess) spring like a rubber band. And the icon spacing or something. We could probably find all of those things elsewhere in computers.
A lot of you are acting like they took a picture of Apple products and sent it to the printers to be made. I think they did a LITTLE bit more than that.
Copying aesthetics … well, what people want currently, is done by all the major manufacturers. Cars, airplanes, etc. etc.
http://www.hark.com/clips/vklyvpjcvh-wining-and-dining-air-force-dignitaries-is-common
If wining and dining phone shell manufacturers and icon programmers is against the law …