Image via CrunchBase
My Forbes.com contributor colleague Haydn Shaughnessy, weighed in against the Apple v. Samsung verdict (Why The Apple vs Samsung Verdict Is A Big Mistake) arguing that the copying that he acknowledges took place was no worse than copying in the world of fashion, food, or automobiles. Shaughnessy argues that such copying should be viewed as flattery, not as harmful theft.
One question that Shaughnessy doesn’t address is central to the debate: Where should the line between flattery and theft be drawn? He says that “design is not invention” but that doesn’t help us distinguish between the two. If design shouldn’t be protected, invention presumably should. But again, how to tell?
Stefan Dietrich, my colleague at CITOResearch.com had a contrary response to the verdict (The Apple vs. Samsung Verdict: A Case of Copying Gone Too Far) in which he argues the kind of design Apple achieved deserves to be protected. In Dietrich’s view the key issue is that patents were granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and despite such knowledge Samsung’s willfully violated many of Apple’s patents.
Using examples from fashion and the auto industry, Dietrich does a good job of expressing where the line between what should be protected and what should not be, and shows how different countries in the world have different views, making it imperative for global companies like Samsung to better train their engineers to work with consideration of global laws, and not just apply their understanding of infringement under local laws. One interesting observation: In Dietrich’s view, neither Apple nor Samsung should be considered innovative. He views them as companies that package innovation and deliver it to a wide audience.
Dan Woods is CTO and editor of CITO Research, a publication that seeks to advance the craft of technology leadership. For more stories like this one visit www.CITOResearch.com.
