Can you give a simple example of the difference between software and code+design. I'm not getting the distinction.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's 'Crisis of Design' Memo Enters Patent Trial as Early Apple Designer Testifies on Confusion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you give a simple example of the difference between software and code+design. I'm not getting the distinction.
After having invested HUGE amounts in research & development they deserve every penny of that. It's all part of a free market economy: do your homework and hopefully the pay-off will follow. For another company to come along and shamelessly copy everything you worked so hard on just ain't fair!!
Cept for that fact that Apple won't accept money for the rights to use their patents. If it's not an Apple product, then they don't want you using their patents.
...which is rather unfair, considering the thousands of patents they've licensed that make their products possible.
Fair enough, but today Apple has software patents and is using them in court.
I can't ultimately say whether this is a good or bad thing. It is what it is.
Thinking it should be different won't change anything in the real world. We'll all see how the courts decide soon enough. The final decision (After appeals) may trigger a debate about whether the patent system needs to be revamped. This could be a good thing in that respect. It will be very interesting to see how reality unfolds.
In this situation, the code would be the body of work. You can make something similar, but you can't copy the code verbatim. You have to find another way to do it, because it's protected by copyright. It's much the same way how anyone can write a mystery novel. It can have a similar plot with similar characters, but it can't be exactly the same. Much like how you can't just go out and plagiarize Stephen King for your new book, you can't copy someone elses code line by line.
The design would be the UI, the icons, the look and feel everyone keeps talking about. That's protected by trademark. You can't go out and make a product that looks exactly like the original. You have to improve upon it, and use your own graphics and layouts.
That's more than enough to protect a piece of software. With just those in place, anyone can go out and make their own word processor. It can't look exactly like the competitions, nor can it use the same base code, but it can still perform the same functions.
But with the patent system in place, that means someone could potentially go out and obtain the exclusive rights to the concepts contained within a word processor. That curtails innovation, and doesn't allow anyone to improve upon the base concepts presented within that first word processor, because the ideas are owned by one company.
You can find 50,000 different, possibly better, ways to perform autocorrect function, but it ultimately doesn't matter how you do it, or if it is improved upon, because that first company owns the rights to the concept of autocorrect. No one else is allowed to use it.
It's the very antithesis of why the patent system was set up in the first place.
This trial has exposed Apple for the story tellers that they are. The loyalist love believing Apple goes about it's "own" way in doing things and doesn't look at the competition or what it's users want. But now you know different, now you know the truth. You also now know some poor unknown Japanese designer by the name of Shin Nishibori is the true genius behind the design of the iPhone 4/4S, not Jon Ive. Before this, Ive got all the credit and worship from the loyalists. But even with the email evidence, many still want to believe Ive should get all or majority of the credit. This level of blind worship is quite creepy. You also believed Steve when he said a 7 inch tablet is useless. You've taken the words of Steve Jobs and went on forums like this, going on about Steve said this, Steve said that, but now you know he was very receptive to the idea of a 7 inch tablet. And it was a Galaxy Tab of all things that made Apple see a 7 inch tablet is "compelling." You're also now seeing a 4 inch iPhone coming. A new doc connector size. All things that contribute to the so called fragmentation that you ridicule Android for.
So you see, this wonderful magical world you think Apple create and design in, isn't so magical. In fact, it's no different from the way any other corporation does things. They look at the competition and look at customer feedback. Nothing magical about that. So you see, Santa Clause isn't real.
Bottom line is, the industry needs all it's players, and it's trials like this that do no good but limit products to the end user.
So you see, this wonderful magical world you think Apple create and design in, isn't so magical. In fact, it's no different from the way any other corporation does things. They look at the competition and look at customer feedback. Nothing magical about that. So you see, Santa Clause isn't real.
Bottom line is, the industry needs all it's players, and it's trials like this that do no good but limit products to the end user.
I don't really care about the "history" of computer , remember I am a simple consumer like the ones this woman say that they will be confused and mistake a Samsung phone with an iPhone, sorry but this woman proved that she is no position to be called an expert.
I am sorry if you find offending my words but you know that they are the truth.
http://gizmodo.com/5932793/here-is-..._source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
WHY has this not been posted yet?!
WHY has this not been posted yet?!
Did you even look at the music icon? It's a near-exact clone of the iTunes icon.
There was actually a financial arrangement between Xerox and Apple. They did not "lift" the ideas. Not so with Microsoft, of course.
Amen , like I said a while back fear the day apple gets involved with other markets like Tv etc. ......
So how come AMD did and can produce chips than run 086 code, as they said many years ago, reverse engineering Intel CPU's so they could take the same code, process it (their way) and output the same result?
http://gizmodo.com/5932793/here-is-..._source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
WHY has this not been posted yet?!
I read that. What a sad sad company Samsung are.
----------
On a side note how can anyone defend Samsung on here now after this blatant copying?
http://gizmodo.com/5932793/here-is-..._source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
WHY has this not been posted yet?!
millions likes for this. makes an amazing read. there goes my work today....
Hopefully, for the sake of the consumer, Apple will win this lawsuit. Don't get me wrong--Steve's vision for what a phone should be is great, but what's not great is that it's the only vision out there. Just think of the kinds of choices consumers might have if other companies were forced to invent their own visions.
This whole topic is ridiculous. We're talking about small icons of phones, music programs, notes software etc.. How many options are there really to have an easy to read, aesthetically satisfying icon of a phone? Come on! I like Apple prodcuts, huge fan, but I'm not afraid to call out BS when I see it. This whole Samsung vs Apple court drama is free market capitalism at it's worst.
Which is an almost exact clone of the Windows icon for music. Selective or short memory?
You're missing the point about what this case is about. It's not about an icon or two, it's about; a whole bunch of icons looking similar, packaging looking similar, the shell looking similar, the icon grid looking similar - a whole bunch of things looking very, very similar. If Samsung had just come up with a couple of icons that were similar it wouldn't have been an issue and certainly wouldn't have gone to court.
To put it in more simplistic terms. Say someone wrote a quiz book. If someone else uses that quiz book as a reference and copies some of the questions then it's not a problem. Apple are claiming Samsung didn't do that and that instead they photocopied the entire book and then slapped a Samsung logo on the front and started selling it as their own.
But it's all a question of degree and whether Samsung went too far.