I’m a firm believer in copyrights and patents. I think that if you made something unique or remade/remixed an original idea/concept into something new or better, you should be able to publicize it, own it, and control it. You’ve put a lot of hard work into it and others shouldn’t be able to just profit or even steal credit by just copying it. On the other hand, I believe that there should be clear and reasonable limits to this exclusivity and that certain ideas, concepts, or things should be completely outside the realm of copyright/patent protections because they’re essentials or principles.
If you haven’t heard, a U.S. court has ruled in favor of Apple, Inc. in its patent suit against Samsung Grp. over various smartphone/tablet technologies and designs. Apple claimed nearly $2 billion in damages attributed to nearly 30 Samsung devices. Samsung countered with a $400 million suit attributed just a handful of Apple devices.
Yes, you read that right, Apple is claiming that it “invented” and “owns” the rounded-square icon and the rounded-rectangular prism shape. It also claims it owns the very physical action a user does to enlarge a document.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?
I’m sorry, but a person or company cannot patent such basic shapes as the rounded-square or rounded-square icon. An icon, according to the dictionary, is: a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something. A rounded-square icon is an icon whose border and overall shape is that of a geometrically equilateral rectangular prism whose four vertices are semicircles with equal radii.
Sorry Apple, you didn’t build that.
As a photographer, I cannot copyright a photographic technique or principle. Sure such a thing can be attributed to me because I may have been the one to formalize it, develop it, popularize it, or master it to such a degree that it takes on my name. For example, blurry backgrounds of photographs due to the use of a wide aperture (bokeh). That’s just something that happens due to the nature of optics and I cannot “own” it and turn around and sue others who try to make their own images that contain such an intrinsic element. Another example is E=mc². Neither Albert Einstein or his estate owns it, nor can they own it.
This is what Apple is essentially doing, they’re claiming ownership of the form, or essence, of a thing. Patent law wasn’t designed to allow people to monopolize cornerstones of the physical and metaphysical world. This isn’t the Nike “swoosh” or some other complex creation or manipulation where it is reasonable to say, “Yes, you made that and it is unique and beneficial. You can now control it for a period of definite time.”
The court ruling in Apple’s favor will eliminate competition and reduce options for consumers. I don’t mind the elimination of competition via legitimate competition, meaning you fairly compete and whoever comes out on top, wins. I realize you have to protect your own works and technologies in order to distinguish yourself from the competition and counterfeit, but to patent things and ideas that simply squash competition even before the opening bell is ridiculous.
I credit Apple for being revolutionary in the way we communicate, listen to and distribute music and applications, and really making the smartphone popular. However, Apple didn’t invent our currently popular communications (mobile phone with Internet connectivity), music consumption (online repository/storefront), or the smartphone (*cough* IBM, *cough* Ericsson, etc.).
All Apple did is remix technologies and techniques into the iPhone and use its marketing prowess to really get it into everyday life. They didn’t develop basic shapes or rectangular containers for electronic devices. Sorry (not really) Apple, but you need to stop being a pompous bully and sit down.
I gotta compete with every other professional photographer out there as well as every MWAC, DWAC, and HWAC (hipster with a camera) out there. I’m doing fine. I’m sure you will too.