Even If Samsung And Apple Copied Every Last Detail From Each Other, Who Cares?
from the important-question dept
With the Apple/Samsung case finishing up, James Allworth, over at HBR, has an excellent post wondering why it matters if one company copies from another? A few years ago, we wrote about a book that pointed out that copying and then innovating on the copies is a perfectly reasonable and important business strategy. Allworth points to a new book (one I've been looking forward to for a while) by Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala (who we've quoted numerous times) called The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation.He then takes the lessons of that book and applies it to the Apple/Samsung fight, noting that even if we assume they were imitating each other, that seems to have only encouraged further innovation, not less:
It's the same story we've been explaining for years. History and tons of studies have shown over and over and over again that competition drives innovation, because innovation is an ongoing process. Thus, when others can copy you, that actually accelerates innovation by giving the original incentives to stay ahead in the marketplace, and develop the next great thing. Research has also shown that it's not as easy as you think to "just copy" because you only see the superficial aspects to copy, rather than having the deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't that a market leader often gains.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.
In fact, when you understand that, you realize that patents can actually slow down innovation by letting a company rest on its laurels, and not have to continue to rapidly innovate. Other companies can't build on what they did first, and so they don't have the same incentives to continue to advance the market forward. And the Apple/Samsung fight in the market appears to support that.
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.Exactly.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, copycats, innovation, knockoffs, patents
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So can making a billion plus dollars a year... but that doesn't stop Apple either.
Sorry, but it cuts both ways. Statements like this are really just FUD to the whole deal. The vast majority of patents are not used as the basis of attacks, they are not used as the basis of supporting the old NPE, they are used by companies to secure themselves a little space in the market, and often to provide them with a way to turn ideas and perhaps a basic working model into income via licensing, which in turn gives them the money to keep on innovating.
Apple "innovated" after the Microsoft lawsuit mostly because they were dying, nearly dead. Without Microsoft investing in Apple, we would have one less player now.
History, it's a complete thing, not just little parts that you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22windows%208%22%20%22closed%20system%22&p ws=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have any specific questions about SecureBoot or The Windows Store (the 2 things used as evidence to call win8 'closed') I would be happy to answer them for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, W8, with its so-called "secure" boot scheme screams of limiting competition by shutting out superusers who want to run or develop alternate OSes on mass-market hardware. So in that way, at least, it is more closed than W7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, that article has what may be the longest thread ever of debating comments without pre-adolescent name calling, if any of our local trolls want to learn how it's properly done... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You'll only be able to install Metro apps via the store, and Microsoft will control what's in the store and what's not."
And while I'm sure nay-sayers will argue that "People don't have to use the App Store" It is definitely being built as a primary feature of Windows 8, and Will be Very prominent (and maybe the only way some manf. offer apps) for Tablets / netbooks / phones.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows/20748/microsoft-ex-employee-windows-8-catastrophe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And also, do you really know what FUD means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes.
Do you?
Do you understand things like yellow journalism and one sided hatchet jobs? Do you know the concept of "little lie, big lie"?
Please enlighten us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
$2.5 Billion US is a piss in the bucket for both companies.
Total equity for Samsung Electronics alone is $224.7 Billion US.
It's not Samsung's profit that's at stake, it's Samsung's reputation as an innovator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which wouldn't be encessary in the first place if other companies wouldn't use patents as a basis of attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Apples claim to have invented the GUI mean that Xerox PArc copied Apple before Apple invented the GUI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moreover, Apple paid Xerox for what they took, licensing the Alto's GUI among other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Source for this info?
No, it means Apple was developing it at the same time
Ah, independent, parallel invention. Yep, the current patent system is indeed broken as you pointed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just looked it up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The 'license' Apple was granted by Xerox was free (and also granted to MS), Apple was NOT developing a GUI prior to their first visit to PARC (they started after the first view, and went back a few times for details such as X-Y mouse pathing and how to keep track of windowing information without consuming all the RAM all at once)
Basically, Apple and MS were given the same tools at the same time, Apple brought them to market fastest and then screamed and cried about how everyone stole everything from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was Windows 1.0 that didn't have overlapping windows. Apologies for any confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As was Samsung so Apple should stop the whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may not be what is driving this, but..
If Apple wins, they get legal monopoly protection and chill the market for potential competition.
If Apple loses, they still win:
1- They have more than enough cash to pay for legal fees into the next century, I doubt Samsung has that kind of cash laying around.
2-They erect speedbumps in front of Samsung for future innovation. New products will get held in the pipeline pending the outcome of appeals.
3-The next company with a brilliant idea for a smartphone will waste time and money in legal reviews, or decide it's just not worth risking the legal costs of a patent suit from Apple.
All of which buys months or years worth of a head start for Apple, with no real downside, from their perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It may not be what is driving this, but..
Erm... It has. And I'm only looking at its smartphone business. I promise I won't mention TVs, fridges, sound systems, air conditioning systems etc.
2-They erect speedbumps in front of Samsung for future innovation. New products will get held in the pipeline pending the outcome of appeals.
Yes, and then start suing Apple in retaliation (along with others such as Motorola). What goes around comes around ;)
3-The next company with a brilliant idea for a smartphone will waste time and money in legal reviews, or decide it's just not worth risking the legal costs of a patent suit from Apple.
Indeed, that's why patents are so bad. Although it can come back to haunt Apple as we are seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It may not be what is driving this, but..
This sort of reminds me of Douglas Adams "Shoe Event Horizon". If things keep going as they are, the main business of a tech company will be to sue other tech companies, or defend themselves from lawsuits from other tech companies, with the development and sale of any tech items to consumers being secondary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It may not be what is driving this, but..
If you say so. Their dickheadeness has turned me (and several people I know) away from ever buying Apple products again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yeah, who cares? I do. Only because I despise Apple and it's nice to see someone build something similar that will appeal to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True invention is actually quite rare and doesn't happen a lot. Innovation happens all the time and some companies, like Apple, are quite good at innovating. If you create something that the world has never seen before then I think you deserve a little protection for a while. Innovation not so much because so much of it is plain common sense once a product is better understood or has been used for a little while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point entirely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point entirely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point entirely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point entirely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I invented that!
And my dog invented long division.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point entirely...
Have you ever even seen a smartphone other than Apple's? Samsung phones dont have any sort of 'dock connector', they use Micro-USB (a widely available standard).
Try again?
Also, they are 'ok' with MS because the 2 companies have lots of cross-licensing in place, otherwise Apple would be so held down by Desktop patents that MS holds that they wouldnt be able to sell MacOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point entirely...
The Samsung Galaxy S III: The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers
Samsung's Galaxy S 3 was designed to deliberately not even resemble the iPhone and yet Apple has accused that particular phone in other lawsuits in other countries.
That "slavishly copied" mantra is just an excuse. There are over 4000 different devices -- in every size, shape, color and style -- and I'm sure they're all "slavishly" copied from the iPhone.
The real issue is that Apple is using any excuse it can, in any court in any country to get competitors products banned from the market. Apple isn't interested in money. Apple feels it is entitled by divine right, an exclusive gift from God to Apple of the entire mobile phone market -- despite other players being in the market for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's hardly an informed opinion
Funny how it isn't mentioned that they only lost because they had licensed more to Microsoft than they had intended, not because their theory of copyright applied to GUI elements was found to be wrong.
Apple didn't stop innovating at all. Instead: they came out with the iMac.
How true. If you don't remember the company stalling out with OS 9, Copland, etc for years and facing bankruptcy, the mid-90s were definitely Apple firing on all cylinders. By that standard the last decade of SCO's existence has been a non-stop jamboree of technical innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do people always want to fix symptoms? Fix the damned root cause!
This "kill or be killed" crap is tiring. Greed is the root of evil. Maintain course and it will only get worse.
FIX IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do people always want to fix symptoms? Fix the damned root cause!
The owners of Congress are only interested in expanding intellectual property, not reigning it in -- and certainly not introducing any form of sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why do people always want to fix symptoms? Fix the damned root cause!
Congress Takes Aim at 'Patent Trolls' With SHIELD Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do people always want to fix symptoms? Fix the damned root cause!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do people always want to fix symptoms? Fix the damned root cause!
/sad-but-true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Think of the children..
Without these lawsuits the patent lawyers would not make their $$$ and thus could not feed their children...so yes these lawsuits are clearly needed - they just have nothing to do with innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big company copying big company is not the problem. They both have the resources to continue in business.
But what happens when the individual inventor is easily copied? (eg: Farnsworth) There ability to constantly innovate is necessarily less. Their only option is to sell out to a large company. That being their only viable option, the value of their innovation is substantially depressed.
The problems were seeing is in line with other problems in treating "corporations" as individuals, when they lack the human characteristics we expect in real people.
Another problem is the cost of copying has dropped substantially, and speed and accuracy of it have increased just as dramatically. There used to be a natural barrier in copying that we no longer have.
I'm a proponent of very limited design copyright: 1 year only. 1 Season. That's it. Patents would be limited to 5 years (depreciation of tech equipment). Copyrights, to 20 years (1 generation).
Patents would also be a lot more stringent on the "non obvious" and "prior art" aspects. They would have to be posted in an RFQ phase.
Design copyright would be limited to true innovative design. Flat rectangular tablet with rounded corners??? You mean like a flat rectangular thing with hinges? Yeah. I have a design patent on a door. Sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is only about monopoly
And corporations hate real capitalism.
Oh, they love the word "capitalism," as long as the parenthetical understanding is "the opposite of government regulation of trade," or something like that. Which sounds great, until you admit just how fragile are the capitalist markets that allow real competition. Without government regulation, competitive markets last for no more than the blink of an eye.
Apple wants to control its market. Samsung wants to control its market as well, though is considerably less far along in doing so. Neither want competition, and so neither want what is best for consumers.
These companies are not your friends -- they're your predators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different/opposing view on patents.
http://docs.piausa.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
At least you took a hint and didn't paste a huge wall of text this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as a result, the innovation rate is furious.
With functioning copyright, fashion would stagnate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]