|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
But you do raise a very solid point:
Copying, in and of itself, is
neither good nor bad.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding the
"copying":
It can be against the Law
It can be within the
Law
After all... you state:
One is the slavish replication of a
competitor's
product to steal a piece of their market.
... within the
context of "bad".
However, consider the following
circumstances:
Invention X is created. It is granted patent protection on
specific feature Y in the invention. The rest is denied patent protection
(except as a whole combined with Y) due to prior art. A competitor comes along,
purchases a unit of X and reverse engineers it. The competitor extracts Y,
builds "a better mousetrap" that is not the implementation of Y but performs the
task that Y does. They then build their own competing product.
Would you
really say the competitors product is improper when they don't infringe the
patent of Y?
That's why I'd rephrase your point.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- "Copy" ... more - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
Do you know about "The Selden Car"?
Anything invented by man is obvious. It is within man in man's nature. If it
were not it couldn't have been invented.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
I'll go right along with you that this trial was all about hammering
home the outright black and white copying done by Samsung.
The takeaway has to be either Samsung really did outright black
and white copy Apple's features, or they mistakenly hired a team
of attack lawyers who fumbled the defense.
I might have blinked at a crucial moment, or maybe it was the
crazy tech press not noticing the things that our own Groklaw
observers so keenly pick up. I didn't see Samsung's defense offering
any substantial evidence that function determines form of the features
in dispute, or that a consistent user interface is good for the market.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
