Well, of course they were. Everyone was. The iPhone was a groundbreaking, hugely disruptive device. And everyone else's products sucked in comparison. And Samsung knew it, and wanted to know why.
This very much seems like a misdirected argument, at least from the ethical perspective. The question isn't whether or not Samsung was trying to emulate the elements that made the iPhone a success, the question is to whether it should be allowed or not. A world where that kind of "copying" is disallowed isn't one I want to live in.
> The question isn't whether or not Samsung was trying to emulate the elements that made the iPhone a success, the question is to whether it should be allowed or not. A world where that kind of "copying" is disallowed isn't one I want to live in.
But that's not what this case is about.
Apple is claiming that Samsung copied their product's aesthetics to mislead consumers. That's why Apple is suing Samsung.
And truthfully, I don't want to live in a world where that sort of copying is allowed.
I understand what their claim is. My point was that it's entirely unrelated to the evidence in question. Unless you think the bezel and curves and color choices constitute the reason (!) for Apple's success with the original iPhone.
And to be clear: I'm fine with the idea that you can get a design patent on very narrow grounds to protect branding aspects that trademarks don't. Make Samsung change their plastic then. Don't use that as a springboard to argue they should be sued out of the market. That's just evil.
This very much seems like a misdirected argument, at least from the ethical perspective. The question isn't whether or not Samsung was trying to emulate the elements that made the iPhone a success, the question is to whether it should be allowed or not. A world where that kind of "copying" is disallowed isn't one I want to live in.