Er…
Even clean-room implementation often isn’t enough, see Oracle vs Google.
Imagine the game industry if studios, like id Software, had patented their tech instead of sharing the methodology with fellow game developers?
John Carmack didn’t invent some of the tech, such as BSP, we take for granted in game development but he made them better for real-time rendering. Software patents would have impeding any improvements on the tech – why improve on making a better engine if someone has the rights for X number of years?
Shiny’s Messiah was ahead of it’s time with its Level of Detail. There was a hoopla back in 1998 when it was rumoured that Dave Perry wanted to patent their Messiah LOD tech.
That’s not a disadvantage, it’s a head start. And sometimes a head start isn’t enough and they aren’t able to achieve massive success, but oh well.
I mean, look, let’s put this in tangible terms, looking back to a time when they didn’t generally grant software patents. In 1970, IBM invented the relational database. If they did that today, they would patent it, but back then they couldn’t. So they got a leg up in implementing their relational DB, by being the guys who invented the technology and had Codd working for them, but today, they are not the dominant RDBMS vendor.
But do you really think the world would be better if nobody could have ever created a competing RDBMS until 1990?
In 1979, Visicalc was released, the first spreadsheet. The idea of a spreadsheet wasn’t patentable at the time, though it almost certainly would be today, and Lotus (and then Excel) ended up crushing Visicalc. But do you really think the world would be a better place if 2000 was the first year that anyone could release a spreadsheet to compete with Visicalc (which, dominating the market monopolistically, would have had no reason to innovate, and certainly wouldn’t be anything like as sophisticated as Excel 2000 was in the actual world)?
So, was innovation hampered because nothing could be patented? Did IBM (and then Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft, etc.) decline to create the relational database because it couldn’t be patented? Did Visicalc (and then Lotus, Borland, Microsoft, etc.) decline to create spreadsheets because they couldn’t be patented?
Or is it the case that innovation went along swimmingly and the patents would have harmed innovation instead?
I feel like that’s a pretty rhetorical question, all things considered.
That’s not a disadvantage, it’s a head start. And sometimes a head start isn’t enough and they aren’t able to achieve massive success, but oh well.
No… you’re missing it.
It’s not ONLY a disadvantage in that it’s removing their head start, it’s removing the head start, and it’s giving a competitive advantage to their competitors.
For instance, imagine the following scenario:
- Apple pays its little army of designers lots of money to make some super cool, awesomely designed thing.
- Once it hits the market, one of their competitors, like Samsung, is able to make EXACTLY the same thing. Not just, similar… but literally exactly the same thing. Only they do not have to pay for designers. Apple is essentially paying their designers for them, since they are designing things, which can then be replicated.
- Samsung then uses that money which they saved from not having to innovate themselves, and invests it into marketing, or reduced pricepoints, or whatever. Thus giving them a competitive advantage in the market place.
Do you understand the problem now? It’s not just a question of, “Well, they’ll just make this stuff anyway, because it’s good!” It’s a question of your proposed system actually not only failing to reward innovators, but actually going so far as to punish them, and reward the companies which do no innovation at all and only copy the innovations of others.
edit: never mind, why bother arguing with Timex.
Er…
That’s alleged patent infringement, not alleged copyright violation. Which supports Timex’ argument.
EDIT: Which seems to be what you were saying. Never mind, carry on.
12345
Me not read good first thing in morning.
Well, you probably wouldn’t have a game industry snce it’s in no one’s interest to slap patents on polygons, shaders and bump-mapping.
Oh look, a copyright violation! (And only Japan’s laws are such that you can change a button position a millimetre and call it a different copyright in that case…)
You also seem to be unaware of the law surrounding derivative works…
There are plenty of fields where even copyright is inapplicable (clothing, furniture, food - they’re “utilitarian”) and the only relevant IP is trademark law. And they’re among the fastest-changing fields!
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Given your example, I’d say that Apple would be entitled to money, a fair fee for each device… instead Apple is seeking damages and a cease & desist of the product. It’s one thing to ask for fair compensation, it’s another to ask for the elimination of competition. Should Apple be rewarded for the design? Yes. Should Apple be allowed to stop other companies for using it’s design? I don’t think so.
Can you copyright the position of a button? Generally, that kind of design is protected via patents, not copyright.
Doesn’t copyright only apply to written material?
Actually the position of the button (and its relationship with the rest of the product) would probably fall into the category of trade dress.
This is all entirely wrong. Remember those “look and feel” lawsuits? Those were copyright-based. And copyright certainly applies to non-written material – music, movies, art, photographs, etc.
Apple alleged that copyright should apply to look-and-feel. If I remember, they lost.
But that’s all essentially “written material”. Especially in the case of movies, art, and photographs.
When I was talking about the location of a button, I was talking about the location of a physical button on a physical device. That’s not something which is covered under a copyright.
I think Tim has it right in that it’s an issue of trade dress, rather than either patents or copyright.
Maybe. And/or Industrial Design, depending on what exactly is being argued.
Trade dress only protects against misrepresentation…
Can Samsung counter-sue since an iPad phsyically looks like a Samsung picture frame from circa 2005?
No, because, for the bajillionth time, they’re suing because they believe that Samsung have ripped off the appearance of more than just one element of the design of the iPhone and iPad.
I love what this is doing to apple’s legal team:
Apple fears Samsung tablet will ‘seduce’ customers, court told
“This is vastly the one that is going to be targeting the iPad 2,” Apple’s counsel said.
“This is going to be launched on the market with the velocity of a fire hose and [the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is] going to just come in and take away iPad 2 sales so quickly that by the time we get to final hearing the full impact of the patent infringement will be [felt] to the detriment of Apple and to the benefit of [Samsung].”
…
Apple also raised concerns that every Galaxy Tab sold would cost it future app sales as the users would become “Android people”. Apple’s iTunes App Store dominance would be challenged if customers were “seduced” or “sapped away by the Galaxy Tab and its infringements”.
“They’ll then be Android people and the investment in the apps that they make to purchase on their Galaxy Tab will be something they can’t use on an Apple product,” Apple’s lawyer said.
Once people are seduced by samsung’s big black firehose, they’ll never go back. Apparently.