View Single Post
Old 11-17-2012, 07:13 AM   #558
jjallenupthehill
Enthusiast
jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
That is what this discussion is all about isn't it. You are under the impression that you are right and that I am wrong just because I view the subject from a different perspective than you.
Well, that's a fair point!

The thing here is that not all views are necessarily of equal value in every instance.

In respect of a discussion regarding design infringement, to comment meaningfully, you ideally need to understand the principles. In your case, if you don't understand or value the visual design, any point you make about copying this (or not) is going to be basically flawed.

I haven't been commenting on any of the functional stuff - just the visual design. I don't understand enough about the other stuff to comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
I do know for a fact that functional product designers can and have produced useful visual designs in the past, but no visual designer stands a chance of producing something useful in the function design arena. That is an element of the perspective difference.
Whoa, that's a bit of bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? It's a point that is just waiting to be proved wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
You seem to be under the impression that visual design is in the same category of difficulty as functional design in a smartphone product. While such designs are of obvious importance, they are still trivial in comparison to functional product elements.
In terms of levels of difficulty of functional vs visual design, how can you possibly know this? These activities use different parts of the brain. I've met engineers who have designed some quite impressive-sounding things (mobile phone firmware) who are not stunningly clever. Some things are process-related and require linear thinking, where if you keep following the path, you end up at your destination. Other things, like UI design, will not necessarily have a clear starting point. You have to work out where to start, and follow a number of branching paths to reach your destination. In terms of mental effort, who is to say which is more demanding?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Samsung is by far the leader in the design of smartphone functional products, in the context of this threads subject anyway. So much so, that Apple has been buying those functional elements from Samsung, since Apple was incapable of producing those functional elements themselves.
That's true, but so what? They make a lot of the components that Apple use, but they still copied the way they were put together in the instance in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Also you seem to be substituting quantity of words for proof that the design elements that Samsung was sued about were actually worthy of the patent protection Samsung was wrongly accused of violating. That just does not work.
Well, that's again fair, but that's not what I have been talking about. I've just been addressing the 'flat earthers' who are denying that Samsung copied Apple.

You are valuing functional design far more highly than visual design, and in terms of whether the latter should be protected under patent law, I accept that it's fair to say that patents are better suited to functional things, and copyrights more appropriate to IP like design.

But, design is apparently patentable in the US, and Samsung has clearly copied Apple. Even if it wasn't - it's a clear case of copying.

We can debate the relative value of functional design vs visual design, and in this respect it's difficult to argue against your view that functional design is more important. As to whether visual design has any value at all, that's a different matter

The reason for the number of words is that most people don't understand design at all. There are subtleties (inspiration vs plagiarism) that need to be described and illustrated to be appreciated, that defy an abbreviated Twitter-like summary.
jjallenupthehill is offline