David Shaffer, The Daily Record Newswire
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 “How can Apple claim that they own the market on shiny, black boxes?” After some thought, I realized that the magic of an iPhone is not its beautifully-minimal design. It’s amazing because it’s 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’t 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 put it, “We 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’t imagine how you’d follow it.” Apple designers toiled for “years” to create the “most simple, purest manifestation of what that can be — something that people can love.”
But how do you patent an experience?* Apple can merely claim that the imitation of the iPhone and the iPad by Samsung goes “beyond acceptable imitation.” The Samsung attorney in the case claimed that “Being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition. It’s not copying and it’s not infringing. Everybody does it in the commercial marketplace.”
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 a project, there’s significant examination of what the concept of the building wants to be. 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’ve learned that every architect has their own way of doing things. In projects that I’ve worked on, a big part of the design process is utilizing precedents. 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’re talking about. For example, if I reference Exeter Library by Louis Kahn, most architects instantly understand that I’m 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’t mean that they’re not important. 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. 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. Even in these later phases, architects are paid because we design buildings, we don’t mass-manufacture them. 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 — your ideas — cannot 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 “fixed tangible medium of expression” is copyrightable.
