You’re probably familiar with patents, copyrights, and trademarks, the three main types of intellectual property. Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. (That’s a vastly simplified explanation, but it’s good enough for our purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are all about protecting consumers from being deceived in the marketplace — the idea is to clearly indicate the source of a product or service.
It's very interesting that in trademark and trade dress the issue is whether a product confuses consumers, rather than whether ideas were copied. Does this mean, with respect to these claims, that it's fine to copy product ideas and designs, so long as the product is clearly from a different source and consumers would not confuse it with the original source?
(For patents and copyright claims, it's more clear that it's about the duplication rather than the confusion it may cause.)
Only utility patents protect ideas. No other intellectual property does. It's unfortunate that there aren't stronger penalties for rights-holders who make claims wildly beyond the scope of the licenses they're granted. They cause a lot of confusion and unnecessary animosity toward what are very pro-consumer concepts [1].
I really enjoyed the discussion about "Trade Dress" as protected IP, that was something I had vague notions about and now have less vague notions about (the story about how the Coke bottle shape is protected was new to me)
I also find it somewhat amusing to compare the 'Apple in the dead pool' under Scully vs the current Apple. Few companies have made such epic reversals in their fortunes.
The image is wrong. According to a post in the reddit thread, as well as Samsung's own website, Samsung unveiled that phone in February 2007, one month after Apple showed the iPhone.
Looking at Samsung's photos, I do not see how it's possible for anyone to say that Apple was copying them. Samsung probably can make a case on the home screen format(4 icons, bottom row, etc.), but the overall design is quite different. The F700 has a physical keyboard.
Looks very similar from the outside, and was definitely demoed before the iPhone.
In fact, from a 2007 report:
> One analyst asked the executives whether they plan to sue Apple as some reports have suggested over design similarities with the iPhone: LG executive Chang Ma replied: "Should we? (laughs) Obviously, we are introducing this touch screen first [since the Prada phone will be available in Europe next month]... we are much more faster realizing and launching products in the market [than Apple]. But LG is targeting a different customer than Apple."
">In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power"
Neither was $172 billion company with a history of manufacturing handheld touchscreen devices dating back to 1989 and a huge portfolio of touch screen devices since then. [see image of early Gridpad here: http://ashishtiwari.posterous.com/guifx-touchscreens-that-ch... ]
How does this compare to another field, say cars? I recently been car shopping for the first time, and the similarities between sedan models is amazing. Due to the nature of a car, and a sedan at that, it seems that all models have to follow a similar design for them to be functional and acceptable.
If a trade dress results in the monopoly of an industry, I assume then that the it would have to be avoided, or everyone pays Apple a small fee for use of the shape.
The issue as well is that many phones are all the same shape - rectangular, and many had rounded corners before Apple. Nokia have been using a XxX grid of icons for years before Apple. So essentially Apple is trying to trademark all of these elements put together as a trade dress issue.
But then Apple did take the time to invest and research the iPhone so they should take some of the benefits, but why sue so late?
There are two tests a trade dress lawsuit has to meet: first, the features have to be distinctive of the product in the eye of the consumer; second, the features must not be functional. This second requirement should mean that trade dress cannot be used to establish a monopoly.
Sounds like Samsung are going to have a tough job defending this. I imported a Galaxy S to Australia before they were release here and I had many people asking me if it was an iPhone, or just assuming I had an iPhone when they saw it. That's changed a bit now as they have been heavily marketed by all the phone carriers so more people know what they are.
Of course, if you inspect it closer, you'll notice the device is thinner, and the screen is larger and has more vibrant colours (particularly compared to the 3gs that it looks like), but on a quick glance you'd think it could be an iPhone.
Seems quite likely from this guy's analysis that it could be won on merits. By making the lawsuit, Apple is also making a statement that it believes the case has merit. And winning the case on the merits (or settling it because a victory for Apple would be likely) would profit Apple significantly.
On the other hand, there is no chance that Samsung will shut down its phone division, whether or not Apple wins the lawsuit.
So I cannot understand how you got the impression that Apple is making this lawsuit in order to annoy Samsung into not competing. That is a much less likely explanation for the suit.
> On the other hand, there is no chance that Samsung will shut down its phone division, whether or not Apple wins the lawsuit.
Samsung may not shut down their phone operation but this suit could make them re-evaluate the cost-benefit of Android phones... others have mentioned that this is a proxy lawsuit against Google, I'd agree.
I don't know, but when you see lawsuits like this it becomes clear why companies patent everything they can. It would suck to be in a position where Apple could come after you and you have no response. You have to have a patent portfolio to fight people attacking you.
I'd have to assume that Apple was really comfortable with the terms of their component supply contracts with Samsung, and that Samsung can't find a way to get out of them at this point.
Because it could cost them even more. Apple is problematic for Samsung for two reasons: (1) This lawsuit and (2) Apple selling product that Samsung makes much higher margins on than displays and fabbing.
Samsung ends up being in a MUCH better place if Apple becomes a niche player and Android and/or Windows Phone become the dominant platforms.
If Samsung was able to get out of all contracts to Apple it could probably stall Apple's growth a bit. Not an enormous hit, but enough to help Android get some tablet strength and WP7 to get Mango out the door.
Given that Samsung is the premiere vendor of non-Apple phones and tablets, and given this market is much more lucrative than components, they may be willing to give up 4% of revenue in a powerplay.
With that said they probably have contracts through 2011. Although if they were late on delivering the product, they could probably deal with the penalties, since they're probably small in comparison.
Samsung IS Apple in South Korea, and for what it's worth, an event like this is not by an stretch of the imagination going to hurt them. Especially when you consider Samsung has a lot more going for it than home appliances and electronics in the United States.
Samsung doesn't make the iPhone or iPad display; LG does. There may at this point be others; certainly, people have noticed minor performance differences in some newer iPhone 4 displays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...
http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable...
Announced Dec 2006. I'm not saying Samsung copied this phone, but if I was LG, I'd start to wonder.
BTW, best article on the issue to date.