91视频

Recently, I heard about an on-going court case that peaked my interest. The case involves technology giants Apple and Samsung. At the heart of the case, Apple is suing Samsung because they believe Samsung stole their design for the iPhone. My first reaction was 鈥淗ow can Apple claim that they own the market on shiny, black boxes?鈥� After some thought, I realized that the magic of an iPhone is not its beautifully-minimal design. It鈥檚 amazing because it鈥檚 sleek design is so minimal that absolutely nothing distracts the user from the interface. Hand swipes over a glossy, keyless, pane of glass combined with simple, intuitive software produce a symbiotic connection between user and machine that had never before existed. The designers at Apple didn鈥檛 create a beautiful black rectangle – they created an experience. And the minimal design of the phone was paramount in creating that experience.

As Apple designer Christopher Stringer , 鈥淲e were looking for a new original and beautiful object, something that would really wow the world. We wanted to create something that seemed so wonderful you can鈥檛 imagine how you鈥檇 follow聽it.鈥� Apple designers toiled for 鈥測ears鈥� to create the 鈥渕ost simple, purest manifestation of what that can be – something that people can聽love.鈥�

But how do you patent an experience?* Apple can merely claim that the imitation of the iPhone and the iPad by Samsung goes 鈥渂eyond acceptable imitation.鈥� The Samsung attorney in the case that 鈥淏eing inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition. It鈥檚 not copying and it鈥檚 not infringing. Everybody does it in the commercial聽marketplace.鈥�

This ethical dilemma of inspiration versus borrowing is especially compelling to me as a young design professional at ZGF Architects. I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work on several projects at the conceptual stage. In these early phases in 聽a project, there鈥檚 significant examination of what the concept of the building . Ideas are generated by copious amounts of hand sketching, computer drafting, and model building. Some concepts come all at once and some crystallize only after weeks of hard work.

During this process, I鈥檝e learned that every architect has their own way of doing things. In projects that I鈥檝e worked on, a big part of the design process is utilizing precedents.聽 Once I understand the scale and function of a building, I find similar built projects and attempt to learn lessons from their successes and failures. Then, I try to apply those lessons to the design at hand. The more projects one studies, the larger the library of ideas one has to pull from. The team will toss around ideas, conceptual drawings, and precedents during in-house critiques and from those decide the best direction to take.

Is this copying work? No. One is simply applying the successful ideas of others to create an entirely new idea of his own.

Precedent is incredibly valuable as a point of reference. When you mention a specific built project, everybody on the design team knows what you鈥檙e talking about. For example, if I reference by Louis Kahn, most architects instantly understand that I鈥檓 referring to a building that (among other things) has a strong, geometric plan which is inwardly focused around a central atrium. The reference communicates the visual idea, aids in the mental experience of a space, and shows the concept could be successful.

Just because ideas can be used freely doesn鈥檛 mean that they鈥檙e not important.聽 During the conceptual phase of the architectural design process, the value does not reside in the drawings themselves. The value resides in the ideas behind the drawings. The drawings merely communicate the ideas. 聽Later in the process, there is unquestionable value in drawings which detail the construction of the building. After all, architects are the ones who are entrusted with making buildings work. 聽Even in these later phases, architects are paid because we design buildings, we don鈥檛 mass-manufacture them.聽 And design, by its very nature, requires vision, perseverance, and rigor.

The Apple v. Samsung case made me realize just how much designers depend on the successful ideas of others. There is a fine line between learning and copying. Furthermore, sometimes the concept (or the experience) is more valuable than the actual product. Unfortunately for Apple and other designers, your most valuable commodities 鈥� your ideas 鈥揷annot be copyrighted. **

*The writer of this blog acknowledges that the case in question concerns broader intellectual property rights beyond just patents. He also acknowledges that the case includes issues of trademark infringement and common law unfair competition. As such, ideas presented in this blog simplified the court preceding in an effort to make a concise argument.

** As was explained to me by a lawyer, ideas are not copyrightable. Only the expression of those ideas in a 鈥渇ixed tangible medium of expression鈥� is copyrightable.