The blogosphere is seething today with theories about why Apple is suing Samsung, one of its key suppliers and partners.
It’s been suggested that Apple has little interest and chance of winning a “look and feel” lawsuit, otherwise known as “trade dress.” It’s a tactical move, a way to win concessions from either Samsung or Google. Silicon Alley Insider, for example, says it’s to force Google to charge hardware makers for Android, which is currently free.
But the real reason is this: Apple is pissed off with getting ripped off. And it has a good chance of winning, because it has won several trade dress lawsuits before.
As is often the case with Apple, the company has explained itself in simple and direct terms. Yesterday Apple’s PR department put out a statement that said, essentially, the company is tired of getting ripped off.
“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”
For some reason, a lot of pundits are loath to take Apple at face value. Perhaps it’s the company’s penchant for secrecy and obfuscation (remember when Steve Jobs said the iPod would never do video, just before the iPod did video?).
But in my experience, Apple and Steve Jobs are often quite truthful and direct when it comes to explaining motives. Just look at Steve Jobs’ open letter on DRM, or Thoughts on Flash. They quite clearly explain Jobs’ thinking. However, both were greeted by volumes of analysis that misinterpreted his reasoning, second guessed his motives and tended towards the conspiratorial.
There’s nothing underhand about Apple’s suit against Samsung. It’s a straight shot at getting the court to prevent Samsung from selling “blatant” copycat products.
Apple has a history of winning trade dress claims. In the late 1990s, when the fruity see-through iMacs were riding high, Apple won several trade dress claims against companies selling copycat iMacs.
In 1999, Apple sued eMachines, Daewoo and Future Power for knocking off the iMac’s distinctive look and feel. It also launched an investigation against an Australian company, FishPC, for selling a machine similar to the iMac.
Apple won an injunction against eMachines, and settled out of court with Daewoo and Future Power. In all cases, the infringing machines were pulled from the market.
A similar result against Samsung would be huge — but not unprecedented.
