Rich Neighbour

90-second read

In 1983, Microsoft blindsided Apple Inc by announcing Windows, a graphical operating system that looked a lot like the Macintosh software that Microsoft had been helping Apple build. Steve Jobs, the Apple CEO, was furious. He reportedly summoned Bill Gates (Microsoft CEO), accused him of stealing the idea, and unleashed a tirade: "You're ripping us off! I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!"

Gates stayed calm and said: “Well, Steve, I think there’s more than one way of looking at it. I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.”

In 2026, Suzhou People’s Court ordered Molly Tea, a local Chinese tea chain, to pay $1.5 million in damages to Louis Vuitton after they lost their trademark court case. Molly Tea was found to have infringed seven Louis Vuitton trademarks by using a floral logo that the court ruled was substantially similar to LV’s monogram.

It gets even worse. Molly Tea was ordered to apologise on various national media channels.

The issue is that the flower in Louis Vuitton’s monogram is very similar to patterns found on 8th-century Tang dynasty artifacts. Similar designs existed long before Louis Vuitton, which makes the question of who borrowed from whom a little more complicated.

In a world of ideas, we all borrow from each other. The only real question is who gets to call it borrowing, and who gets to call it stealing.

Legally, it doesn’t really matter. A company can own a trademark without having invented every shape inside it.

There’s always a rich neighbour somewhere, and the victor tends to be the one who has the best lawyers and deepest pockets.

There is something slightly ridiculous about claiming ownership of a pattern whose ancestors may be older than your country.

Molly Tea have appealed, so this chapter is not closed yet.