August 24th was a landmark
victory for Apple vs. Samsung over patent-infringement. The jury found the
majority of Samsung smartphones and tablets guilty of infringing on a number of
Apple patents, and recommended that Apple be awarded $1.05 billion in damages.
The patents Samsung infringed and violated include [1]
- All phones and tablets on the screen
bounce-back patent
- Pinch and zoom patent with all but three
devices
- The front of the iPhone for all but one
phone
- The home screen for all phones
The victory of Apple reminds me
of the Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation lawsuit in 1994 (lawsuit
was filed in 1988, lasted four years and was affirmed for appeal in 1994) over
a copyright infringement. At that time Apple was looking to prevent Microsoft
and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements
that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems.
However, Apple lost that lawsuit. The court also pointed out that many of
Apple's claims failed on an originality basis. The court ruled that,
"Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user
interface or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[2]
Since then GUI technology has
changed, and patenting the user interface innovation is nothing more than patenting
common sense. Indeed, discovering common sense or intuitive approach requires a
lot of research and effort.
Thus two questions one might
ask:
- Was the Apple vs. Microsoft ruling good
for users? or
- Is protecting innovation in GUI and visual
design most beneficial for users?
Samsung, along with some analysts
claim that the ruling will bring the price of the devices up for customers and
customers will not benefit from innovations.
Yet looking at the aftermath of
Apple’s loss to Microsoft on the GUI lawsuit does not seem to confirm this
prediction. In fact from 1994 to 2007 no significant innovations happened from
a usability perspective and prices were not much affected. Most cell phones were copying each other with
the same basic interfaces and successive releases with minor changes forced the
user to change their device every six months. The laptops continued to be the
same old design and interface until the concept of the iPad was
introduced.
In user experience and human
computer interaction, the discovery of a user friendly and intuitive design is
not an easy task. Finding an “obvious” or “intuitive” way is easy to recognize
but hard to find. It requires motivation, vision, perseverance and research to
find the best solution for a product, something that requires money, time, and
most importantly the belief that better user experiences can create product
success in the marketplace.
It might be quite easy to copy
the innovations of another and be successful, but one only achieves a real
success when they invest and innovate user experiences that simplify and change
the lives of millions people. Perhaps this new ruling will have encouraging
effects for more innovations.
A. M.
-------------------------------------------------
[1] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., C 11-1846 &
C 12-0630
http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung
[2] Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th
Cir.
1994).http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.1435.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html
Published in ergonomics in design
Published in ergonomics in design
