10 ms·

Who cares if Samsung copied Apple?

79 points by hype7 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nu2ycombinator 14y ago
Apple
RexRollman 14y ago
Apple.
ekyo777 14y ago
"Who cares if Samsung" made a pale and horrid replica of what "Apple" is buying screens from them for. Apple is probably one of Samsung's biggest clients. I think patents shouldn't exists but... there's no point in making a copy of something else if you can't improve it... and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- olalonde 14y ago
  > and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent. That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results http://www.osnews.com/story/26228 http://www.osnews.com/story/26228).
  - talmand 14y ago
    One thing I've learned from the Internet is that many people feel fine with citing their own opinion as fact. Especially when it comes to comparing electronic gizmos, college football teams and American trucks built between 1970 and 1990.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    >> >> and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent. >> That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results http://www.osnews.com/story/26228 http://www.osnews.com/story/26228). Selling well doesn't make any device decent, it only makes it popular. Getting decent reviews (which Samsung's current phones do get) supports the notion that the Samsung phones are decent.
    - hoi 14y ago
      decent reviews is a small sample subset of reviewers. A better metric would be returns to the store and loyalty. Likewise sales is also capped by distribution and sales channels. Otherwise you could argue that the original iPhone was much more inferior to its competitors in 2007.
rm999 14y ago
I don't think the article rigorously defends its position. Just because a company innovates after being copied does not mean it is innovating because it was copied. The article doesn't give one example of a situation where a company was motivated by being copied (or even a solid reason why they would be motivated by that). I'll explain the correlation I see: products that are bound to be very profitable are bound to be copied, so of course a company like Apple will develop something like the iphone despite potential copycats.
- hype7 14y ago
  Sorry, I don't see the article saying that a company innovates because it was copied. What it says is that being copied doesn't stop innovation — which is the whole premise of the IP system (if I can't recoup my R&D costs, then I can't afford to innovate).
  - rm999 14y ago
    You're right, the article argues that copying doesn't stifle innovation, but it goes beyond this and argues companies innovate because they are being copied. For example, this quote argues a correlation between copying and innovation, and hints at a causation: >Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all. If anything, it only seemed to accelerate it. Apple wasn't able to rest on its laurels; to return to profitability, and to take the mantle they hold today of one of the technology industry's largest companies, they had to innovate as fast as they could. I'd be the first to agree that an open, competitive market is a good thing. But the author is explicitly discussing "copying", which usually involves an infringement of IP a company considers novel and important to their competitive advantage. I wouldn't say the author's point is completely without merit, there's a balance at play. If the balance goes too anti-patent, companies would be better off investing very little in innovation and a lot in copy-cat products that can undercut true innovators. If Apple never existed, Samsung may today be selling 2008-era phones for 500 dollars. That's the risk.
    - hype7 14y ago
      If that's true, given that Apple felt it was being copied by Microsoft in the mid-1990s, took them to court, and lost — I'm not sure how much more "anti-patent" you can get for Apple than losing a case on its core product — then why did they bother to invest in creating all that stuff that's got them to where they did? And, if an "anti-patent" causes companies not to invest, then how come, five years after the release of the iPhone, with it still not clear whether patents are being upheld or not (but not looking good in Apple's favor: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-ap... ) then Apple continues to invest in the iPhone?
sjwright 14y ago
If you take the assumption that Microsoft copied Apple, as this author has, I think the opposite conclusion can be drawn, that Apple very quickly lost in the marketplace and was circling the drain in 1997. There's a very real possibility that the iPhone will end up a marginal player within a few years, if Android maintains its trajectory. In my opinion though, the big difference between Apple v Microsoft and Apple v Samsung is that Microsoft at least combined Apple's innovations with many innovations of their own, and Microsoft never tried to imitate Apple's trade dress. You can't boil the Apple v Samsung conundrum down to a single paragraph, but I don't see much reason to defend Samsung -- all the serious innovation on the Android side is coming from Google, not Samsung. Samsung can make perfectly awesome devices without also spreading a bit of KIRF jelly on some products.
- saturdaysaint 14y ago
  The article also casually throws out the iPod as an example where copying didn't hurt, when Apple was actually intensely protective of the main interface element, the click-wheel. Successfully defending that made also-ran mp3 players seem somewhat alien/weird. If anything, the success of the iPod emboldened them to continue this strategy.
  - sjwright 14y ago
    The iPod won because competitors took too long to take the iPod seriously, and then too long to identify why it was successful. By the time competitors managed to make competitive products, Apple had the iTunes Store and perhaps the most brilliant and long-lasting marketing campaign of a technology product, ever.
- hazov 14y ago
  I think the PC won because it was cheaper and came to have better applications later not because MS copied some GUI elements.
vibrunazo 14y ago
People have to stop thinking about which side is more fun to "cheer" to and start thinking about what's in your best interest as a consumer. Everyone copies everyone [1]. Apple copied a lot of features from Android [2] and improved upon them. Samsung copied a lot of stuff from Apple and improved them to levels Apple had never gone to before. [3] As the author of the article shows. Copying doesn't stop innovation. It has always been like this with any innovation. There's a reason Newton and Einstein said "I can only see so far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants". Any innovation made by humans is inspired by hundreds of years of history. For us as consumers, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day we get better products from this. We gain from innovation and competition. If Apple didn't copy Android, your iPhone would be worse. If Samsung didn't copy Apple, the best selling phone in the market would be worse. And every consumer would lose. If Apple wins this. It would be bad for every smartphone user on the planet. Including iPhone users. If you love your phone and tech innovation. You should be hoping Samsung wins, even if you have an iPhone. [1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/ [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-of-features-from-android-calls-it-ios5-updated/2295 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-of-f... [3] http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-...
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  Progress is not a linear measure. Patents can help to keep hardware vendors away from converging towards the same design, which would be bad for product variety.
- GHFigs 14y ago
  If Samsung didn't copy Apple, the best selling phone in the market would be worse. A worse phone would still be the best selling?
  - talmand 14y ago
    Obviously if the current best-selling phone was worse then it would not be the best-selling phone. I believe that his point is that without innovating (copying if you will) it probably wouldn't exist as it is today, or if at all, which would be a loss for the consumer.
simonster 14y ago
There's a New York Times article from yesterday making the opposite case: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-apple-fail-to-agree-out-of-court.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-app... The Times article makes the argument that, while Apple didn't stop innovating because Samsung was copying them, Samsung stopped innovating because producing cheap Apple knockoffs was easier than producing unique products with unique features. I don't know if I believe it, but Allworth's claim that copying doesn't hurt the market is certainly not a slam dunk.
- talmand 14y ago
  Yes, because every Samsung device in that market looks like a corresponding Apple product. Right. Now, where can I get the Apple product that was copied to produce the Galaxy Note or maybe just that 7" iPad I keep hearing about?
- hype7 14y ago
  If that were true, then why is Apple copying Samsung? http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-eddy-cue-saw-market-for-7-inch-tablet-in-2011-said-should-do-one/ http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-eddy-cue-saw-market-fo... There's never going to be a true counterfactual to whether Samsung would have innovated more or less if Apple hadn't come up with the iPhone. One thing that I will say: Samsung sure sell a lot of phone for a company that isn't innovative.
- KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago
  If you look at the evidence provided during the court case it's pretty obvious that's not true. Samsung created their own unique designs for everything, and only after benchmarking made changes to improve on them (because at the time samsung was much worse at design). If they 'copied', I would expect the earlier prototypes to look more like the iPhone, but the earlier prototypes look less like the iphone. Also you must not know anything about the electronics industry if you find Samsung un-innovative. Aside from all innovative things that are plain to see in their devices, you also have more objective rankings like patent grants: http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730da6d970b-pi http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730d... Apple is not even on the list.
hboon 14y ago
I care. I care that if a company can copy another's innovation and (1) kill the innovative company (2) make innovative companies not willing to invest resources - time, money and talent - because these resources turn into free R&D for other companies. I haven't given deep thought into my stance on patents in general, but to me, design - industrial design, visual design, software interaction design - takes a lot of effort and talent to get right. Implementing is easier. You can often throw bodies, hardware, money and fix implementation. Most of the time, it is very easy to copy great design. That doesn't look right. And I speak this as a developer. Edit: added a line.
- vegardx 14y ago
  Put 10 developers in a locked room and they would eventually come up with the same idea. Just because you thought of it first does not give you exclusive rights on elementary things. Also, you probably copied someone at some point anyway. Ideas does not simply just appear in your mind, you are influenced by everything around you.
  - bryne 14y ago
    It's very easy (and cheap) to say that after the idea has been born. The idea of someone profiting from the trademark or patent of an idea because they 'thought of it first' may be abhorrent to you, but it's the way this patent system works. I think it's also important to distinguish between companies that think of ideas, then implement them, thus innovating in product; and companies who simply patent the ideas and use them to sue. We call those "patent trolls".
  - hboon 14y ago
    If it's referring specifically to code, I think yes, maybe if we put enough developers/teams in separate, locked rooms, they might eventually come up with the same implementation. But this is assuming they are providing code (solution) to solve an already-defined app (problem). And if we think about copying code, it is the source code that is being copied. Do we agree that copying code is wrong? For design (again, referring to visual, UX, UI, etc, and not to software architecture design), the problem is how to make X better, e.g how to make interaction with a screen better [1]. And the solution is the design - we use fingers instead of stylus. I'm thinking this out loud as I'm answering. So, it appears to me that what I am saying is, you can copy the problem (app or say UX issue) to be solved but you shouldn't copy the solution (be it code or design). > Also, you probably copied someone at some point anyway. I feel like going into this might be a digression so I'll try to keep this short - a specific example, when I was building my first iOS app, there was a competitor that was starting to be very well received. I'd like to say that I took note of what they did right and give my own twist to how to solve the problems which they saw important to solve. And I have specifically steered away in cases where it look like I couldn't come up with a better version, even if the replacement I had to use was not as good - a particular example was I have not to this date implement pull-(release)-to-refresh verbatim using any of the off-the-shelf OSS components in my app despite the original inventor giving permission to do it. So I do walk the walk. Or maybe I did copy. But even if I smoke, I can still take the stand that smoking is harmful. [1] I'm specifically referring to focusing on a finger/touch-based experience vs. using a stylus. I'm not claiming that Apple is the absolute first to do it since I had often used my thumb/finger instead of my stylus when I was using my Treo, but this is a good example of someone innovating.
insickness 14y ago
I get tired of hearing these black and white arguments about this case. He says who cares if Samsung copied Apple? What if Samsung created a product that looked indistinguishable from an iphone in every single way? That would be a problem. So the question is, where do we draw the line? It's ludicrous for Apple to try to patent a rectangle, and that's what people are angry about. But somewhere in between there's a middle ground, and that's what these court cases are trying to find.
- turbogt 14y ago
  @insickness, i agree with you that patent of shape is weird. but, is iphone and galaxy really indistinguishable? they are different size, operating system, logos and even buttons are different. only similarity i can find is that they are rounded rectangle and color black when they are turned off and if you look from far distance they both looks like tv remote control,,,
  - stordoff 14y ago
    Ultimately, I'd agree that Apple are being far too aggressive in this, but IMO the similarities go further than you describe. The Galaxy Ace [1] (I assume the court cases are at least in part about the Ace?) looks very similar to the iPhone and is practically the same size. My Ace is stored in an iPhone case, and it fits almost perfectly. It also ships with a "Samsung Keypad" as the default input device. As far as I can tell, all this does is make the keyboard look more like the one on the iPhone. Compare the Samsung keyboard [2] with the iPhone keyboard [3]. As I said earlier, I personally think that Apple are pursuing this further than I would like, but in some cases it seems (to me at least) that the similarities are more than incidental. [1] Example image: http://i.imgur.com/ZEW45.png http://i.imgur.com/ZEW45.png [2] Samsung keyboard: http://i.imgur.com/WxFt4.jpg http://i.imgur.com/WxFt4.jpg [3] iPhone keyboard: http://i.imgur.com/xSVdZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xSVdZ.jpg
lamebrain 14y ago
I care, sort of. But more in the sense of how absurd it is that people continue to claim Samsung didn't copy Apple when they so shamelessly did. I'm not sure Samsung deserves the punishment Apple is seeking, but they brazenly ripped off Apple designs and are now brazenly pretending they didn't. It's ballsy, I'll give them that. Ignominious, though.
zalew 14y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0
- turbogt 14y ago
  Thanks for the link, that was really good presentation. I hope everybody watch it.
askopruss 14y ago
I do not approve pixel-per-pixel copies, but if one takes ideas from another and improves upon them, one has my side. All those patent wars and things is just a game invented for those who do not innovate for others, but instead innovate for themselves.
clientbiller 14y ago
Apple.
robot 14y ago
copying doesn't matter for consumers and improvising is better for innovation, both true facts. The point missed is that companies need to build unfair advantages to get benefits of their investments. Maybe the blind consumer does not care whether a company builds a great product or goes bankrupt, but preventing copying is one of the measures that lets a company remain competitive, and bring out more products for the long term good of the consumer.
kenster07 14y ago
Is there not a sense of how absolutely broken the patent system is? Apple is playing a game that should not exist.
rtkwe 14y ago
In short? The companies and their lawyers. Litigation is becoming more about hampering your competition and protecting yourself than it is about consumers and things which are 'wrong.'

79 points by hype7 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nu2ycombinator 14y ago

Apple

RexRollman 14y ago

Apple.

ekyo777 14y ago

"Who cares if Samsung" made a pale and horrid replica of what "Apple" is buying screens from them for. Apple is probably one of Samsung's biggest clients. I think patents shouldn't exists but... there's no point in making a copy of something else if you can't improve it... and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 14y ago
> and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent. That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results http://www.osnews.com/story/26228 http://www.osnews.com/story/26228).
- talmand 14y ago
  One thing I've learned from the Internet is that many people feel fine with citing their own opinion as fact. Especially when it comes to comparing electronic gizmos, college football teams and American trucks built between 1970 and 1990.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> >> and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent. >> That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results http://www.osnews.com/story/26228 http://www.osnews.com/story/26228). Selling well doesn't make any device decent, it only makes it popular. Getting decent reviews (which Samsung's current phones do get) supports the notion that the Samsung phones are decent.
  - hoi 14y ago
    decent reviews is a small sample subset of reviewers. A better metric would be returns to the store and loyalty. Likewise sales is also capped by distribution and sales channels. Otherwise you could argue that the original iPhone was much more inferior to its competitors in 2007.

rm999 14y ago

I don't think the article rigorously defends its position. Just because a company innovates after being copied does not mean it is innovating because it was copied. The article doesn't give one example of a situation where a company was motivated by being copied (or even a solid reason why they would be motivated by that). I'll explain the correlation I see: products that are bound to be very profitable are bound to be copied, so of course a company like Apple will develop something like the iphone despite potential copycats.

hype7 14y ago
Sorry, I don't see the article saying that a company innovates because it was copied. What it says is that being copied doesn't stop innovation — which is the whole premise of the IP system (if I can't recoup my R&D costs, then I can't afford to innovate).
- rm999 14y ago
  You're right, the article argues that copying doesn't stifle innovation, but it goes beyond this and argues companies innovate because they are being copied. For example, this quote argues a correlation between copying and innovation, and hints at a causation: >Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all. If anything, it only seemed to accelerate it. Apple wasn't able to rest on its laurels; to return to profitability, and to take the mantle they hold today of one of the technology industry's largest companies, they had to innovate as fast as they could. I'd be the first to agree that an open, competitive market is a good thing. But the author is explicitly discussing "copying", which usually involves an infringement of IP a company considers novel and important to their competitive advantage. I wouldn't say the author's point is completely without merit, there's a balance at play. If the balance goes too anti-patent, companies would be better off investing very little in innovation and a lot in copy-cat products that can undercut true innovators. If Apple never existed, Samsung may today be selling 2008-era phones for 500 dollars. That's the risk.
  - hype7 14y ago
    If that's true, given that Apple felt it was being copied by Microsoft in the mid-1990s, took them to court, and lost — I'm not sure how much more "anti-patent" you can get for Apple than losing a case on its core product — then why did they bother to invest in creating all that stuff that's got them to where they did? And, if an "anti-patent" causes companies not to invest, then how come, five years after the release of the iPhone, with it still not clear whether patents are being upheld or not (but not looking good in Apple's favor: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-ap... ) then Apple continues to invest in the iPhone?

sjwright 14y ago

If you take the assumption that Microsoft copied Apple, as this author has, I think the opposite conclusion can be drawn, that Apple very quickly lost in the marketplace and was circling the drain in 1997. There's a very real possibility that the iPhone will end up a marginal player within a few years, if Android maintains its trajectory. In my opinion though, the big difference between Apple v Microsoft and Apple v Samsung is that Microsoft at least combined Apple's innovations with many innovations of their own, and Microsoft never tried to imitate Apple's trade dress. You can't boil the Apple v Samsung conundrum down to a single paragraph, but I don't see much reason to defend Samsung -- all the serious innovation on the Android side is coming from Google, not Samsung. Samsung can make perfectly awesome devices without also spreading a bit of KIRF jelly on some products.

saturdaysaint 14y ago
The article also casually throws out the iPod as an example where copying didn't hurt, when Apple was actually intensely protective of the main interface element, the click-wheel. Successfully defending that made also-ran mp3 players seem somewhat alien/weird. If anything, the success of the iPod emboldened them to continue this strategy.
- sjwright 14y ago
  The iPod won because competitors took too long to take the iPod seriously, and then too long to identify why it was successful. By the time competitors managed to make competitive products, Apple had the iTunes Store and perhaps the most brilliant and long-lasting marketing campaign of a technology product, ever.
hazov 14y ago
I think the PC won because it was cheaper and came to have better applications later not because MS copied some GUI elements.

vibrunazo 14y ago

People have to stop thinking about which side is more fun to "cheer" to and start thinking about what's in your best interest as a consumer. Everyone copies everyone [1]. Apple copied a lot of features from Android [2] and improved upon them. Samsung copied a lot of stuff from Apple and improved them to levels Apple had never gone to before. [3] As the author of the article shows. Copying doesn't stop innovation. It has always been like this with any innovation. There's a reason Newton and Einstein said "I can only see so far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants". Any innovation made by humans is inspired by hundreds of years of history. For us as consumers, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day we get better products from this. We gain from innovation and competition. If Apple didn't copy Android, your iPhone would be worse. If Samsung didn't copy Apple, the best selling phone in the market would be worse. And every consumer would lose. If Apple wins this. It would be bad for every smartphone user on the planet. Including iPhone users. If you love your phone and tech innovation. You should be hoping Samsung wins, even if you have an iPhone. [1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/ [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-of-features-from-android-calls-it-ios5-updated/2295 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-of-f... [3] http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-...

gurkendoktor 14y ago
Progress is not a linear measure. Patents can help to keep hardware vendors away from converging towards the same design, which would be bad for product variety.
GHFigs 14y ago
If Samsung didn't copy Apple, the best selling phone in the market would be worse. A worse phone would still be the best selling?
- talmand 14y ago
  Obviously if the current best-selling phone was worse then it would not be the best-selling phone. I believe that his point is that without innovating (copying if you will) it probably wouldn't exist as it is today, or if at all, which would be a loss for the consumer.

simonster 14y ago

There's a New York Times article from yesterday making the opposite case: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-apple-fail-to-agree-out-of-court.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-app... The Times article makes the argument that, while Apple didn't stop innovating because Samsung was copying them, Samsung stopped innovating because producing cheap Apple knockoffs was easier than producing unique products with unique features. I don't know if I believe it, but Allworth's claim that copying doesn't hurt the market is certainly not a slam dunk.

talmand 14y ago
Yes, because every Samsung device in that market looks like a corresponding Apple product. Right. Now, where can I get the Apple product that was copied to produce the Galaxy Note or maybe just that 7" iPad I keep hearing about?
hype7 14y ago
If that were true, then why is Apple copying Samsung? http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-eddy-cue-saw-market-for-7-inch-tablet-in-2011-said-should-do-one/ http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-eddy-cue-saw-market-fo... There's never going to be a true counterfactual to whether Samsung would have innovated more or less if Apple hadn't come up with the iPhone. One thing that I will say: Samsung sure sell a lot of phone for a company that isn't innovative.
KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago
If you look at the evidence provided during the court case it's pretty obvious that's not true. Samsung created their own unique designs for everything, and only after benchmarking made changes to improve on them (because at the time samsung was much worse at design). If they 'copied', I would expect the earlier prototypes to look more like the iPhone, but the earlier prototypes look less like the iphone. Also you must not know anything about the electronics industry if you find Samsung un-innovative. Aside from all innovative things that are plain to see in their devices, you also have more objective rankings like patent grants: http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730da6d970b-pi http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730d... Apple is not even on the list.

hboon 14y ago

I care. I care that if a company can copy another's innovation and (1) kill the innovative company (2) make innovative companies not willing to invest resources - time, money and talent - because these resources turn into free R&D for other companies. I haven't given deep thought into my stance on patents in general, but to me, design - industrial design, visual design, software interaction design - takes a lot of effort and talent to get right. Implementing is easier. You can often throw bodies, hardware, money and fix implementation. Most of the time, it is very easy to copy great design. That doesn't look right. And I speak this as a developer. Edit: added a line.

vegardx 14y ago
Put 10 developers in a locked room and they would eventually come up with the same idea. Just because you thought of it first does not give you exclusive rights on elementary things. Also, you probably copied someone at some point anyway. Ideas does not simply just appear in your mind, you are influenced by everything around you.
- bryne 14y ago
  It's very easy (and cheap) to say that after the idea has been born. The idea of someone profiting from the trademark or patent of an idea because they 'thought of it first' may be abhorrent to you, but it's the way this patent system works. I think it's also important to distinguish between companies that think of ideas, then implement them, thus innovating in product; and companies who simply patent the ideas and use them to sue. We call those "patent trolls".
- hboon 14y ago
  If it's referring specifically to code, I think yes, maybe if we put enough developers/teams in separate, locked rooms, they might eventually come up with the same implementation. But this is assuming they are providing code (solution) to solve an already-defined app (problem). And if we think about copying code, it is the source code that is being copied. Do we agree that copying code is wrong? For design (again, referring to visual, UX, UI, etc, and not to software architecture design), the problem is how to make X better, e.g how to make interaction with a screen better [1]. And the solution is the design - we use fingers instead of stylus. I'm thinking this out loud as I'm answering. So, it appears to me that what I am saying is, you can copy the problem (app or say UX issue) to be solved but you shouldn't copy the solution (be it code or design). > Also, you probably copied someone at some point anyway. I feel like going into this might be a digression so I'll try to keep this short - a specific example, when I was building my first iOS app, there was a competitor that was starting to be very well received. I'd like to say that I took note of what they did right and give my own twist to how to solve the problems which they saw important to solve. And I have specifically steered away in cases where it look like I couldn't come up with a better version, even if the replacement I had to use was not as good - a particular example was I have not to this date implement pull-(release)-to-refresh verbatim using any of the off-the-shelf OSS components in my app despite the original inventor giving permission to do it. So I do walk the walk. Or maybe I did copy. But even if I smoke, I can still take the stand that smoking is harmful. [1] I'm specifically referring to focusing on a finger/touch-based experience vs. using a stylus. I'm not claiming that Apple is the absolute first to do it since I had often used my thumb/finger instead of my stylus when I was using my Treo, but this is a good example of someone innovating.

insickness 14y ago

I get tired of hearing these black and white arguments about this case. He says who cares if Samsung copied Apple? What if Samsung created a product that looked indistinguishable from an iphone in every single way? That would be a problem. So the question is, where do we draw the line? It's ludicrous for Apple to try to patent a rectangle, and that's what people are angry about. But somewhere in between there's a middle ground, and that's what these court cases are trying to find.

turbogt 14y ago
@insickness, i agree with you that patent of shape is weird. but, is iphone and galaxy really indistinguishable? they are different size, operating system, logos and even buttons are different. only similarity i can find is that they are rounded rectangle and color black when they are turned off and if you look from far distance they both looks like tv remote control,,,
- stordoff 14y ago
  Ultimately, I'd agree that Apple are being far too aggressive in this, but IMO the similarities go further than you describe. The Galaxy Ace [1] (I assume the court cases are at least in part about the Ace?) looks very similar to the iPhone and is practically the same size. My Ace is stored in an iPhone case, and it fits almost perfectly. It also ships with a "Samsung Keypad" as the default input device. As far as I can tell, all this does is make the keyboard look more like the one on the iPhone. Compare the Samsung keyboard [2] with the iPhone keyboard [3]. As I said earlier, I personally think that Apple are pursuing this further than I would like, but in some cases it seems (to me at least) that the similarities are more than incidental. [1] Example image: http://i.imgur.com/ZEW45.png http://i.imgur.com/ZEW45.png [2] Samsung keyboard: http://i.imgur.com/WxFt4.jpg http://i.imgur.com/WxFt4.jpg [3] iPhone keyboard: http://i.imgur.com/xSVdZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xSVdZ.jpg

lamebrain 14y ago

I care, sort of. But more in the sense of how absurd it is that people continue to claim Samsung didn't copy Apple when they so shamelessly did. I'm not sure Samsung deserves the punishment Apple is seeking, but they brazenly ripped off Apple designs and are now brazenly pretending they didn't. It's ballsy, I'll give them that. Ignominious, though.

zalew 14y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0

turbogt 14y ago
Thanks for the link, that was really good presentation. I hope everybody watch it.

askopruss 14y ago

I do not approve pixel-per-pixel copies, but if one takes ideas from another and improves upon them, one has my side. All those patent wars and things is just a game invented for those who do not innovate for others, but instead innovate for themselves.

clientbiller 14y ago

Apple.

robot 14y ago

copying doesn't matter for consumers and improvising is better for innovation, both true facts. The point missed is that companies need to build unfair advantages to get benefits of their investments. Maybe the blind consumer does not care whether a company builds a great product or goes bankrupt, but preventing copying is one of the measures that lets a company remain competitive, and bring out more products for the long term good of the consumer.

kenster07 14y ago

Is there not a sense of how absolutely broken the patent system is? Apple is playing a game that should not exist.

rtkwe 14y ago

In short? The companies and their lawyers. Litigation is becoming more about hampering your competition and protecting yourself than it is about consumers and things which are 'wrong.'