5 ms·

Competition is great. But there's a point where the "copying" that we as consumers like and benefit from crosses a line and becomes a shameless "knock-off" tha

by roc 14y ago

Competition is great. But there's a point where the "copying" that we as consumers like and benefit from crosses a line and becomes a shameless "knock-off" that we as consumers truly do not benefit from. It's not at all clear that Samsung has crossed that line, but the line exists none-the-less and we as consumers benefit from there being a legal process to determine when the line has been crossed and penalties for those who cross it. And in recognizing that we need such a line and a legal system to determine whether it's been crossed, we must allow that fuzzy cases such as these are inevitable. No matter how we might reform the system.

rednukleus 14y ago
There is nothing in any of these patent cases that even approaches the "shameless knock-off" territory. There are products coming out of China that are counterfits, or very close to existing products - and they should be banned. You would have to be both blind and stupid to not be able to tell the difference between any two Android and iOS phones.
- roc 14y ago
  Yes, it's quite a bit like that old saying about pornography "I know it when I see it". But that hardly changes the point that there is no reform that can both prevent such suits and protect our interests as consumers.
- fkdjs 14y ago
  A shameless knock off copies _everything_. A shameless rolex copies everything from a rolex. Rolex doesn't copy anything from their knockoffs. There has to be one way copying to classify a product as a knockoff. Instead, Apple has copied many features from android, so it's not a case of samsung / android being knockoff products. If anything, consumers have benefited from copying! Everyone complained about iOS notifications, then they copied android notifications. And consumers benefited. The fact that we are even having this discussion is nauseating. It's painfully obvious what the outcome should be in terms of what's best for consumers. A rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation.
  - adrianbg 14y ago
    ... a rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation and with less money pointlessly wasted on lawyers.
guelo 14y ago
How does a shameless "knock-off" hurt consumers? I own a knock-off Rolex and I enjoy it just fine.
- moskie 14y ago
  It can hurt you if you were conned into paying a Rolex-level price, and/or thought you were buying an actual Rolex. And maybe you weren't, but I imagine plenty of people are.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I think this (intentionally or not) points out some of why people want Apple to beat Samsung. Not just win, but beat Samsung. It ties in precisely with what the grandparent is saying. People want to choose sides and, for whatever god-forsaken reason, there are still people who haven't used it since 2.0 convinced that Android is massively inferior, and thus they see this as Apple beating a knock-off. But it's not, and anyone whose seen Samsung's sales figures knows that.
    - moskie 14y ago
      I agree. And I think another issue here is that it isn't the case that Samsung attempts to con people into thinking they're buying an Apple device. Even if you get up in arms saying that Samsung/Android copied certain features from Apple, it would an entirely separate can of worms if people regularly bought Samsung devices, thinking they were buying an Apple one.
  - ars 14y ago
    > or thought you were buying an actual Rolex He said Knock-off, not counterfeit. A knock-off looks like the original but does not falsely advertise itself as actually being the original.
    - moskie 14y ago
      I guess this is just semantics, but look where this redirects to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off "Counterfeit consumer goods, commonly called knock-offs, are counterfeit or imitation products offered for sale."
adrianbg 14y ago
What is knock-off to you? A similar product manufactured for less or an inferior counterfeit indistinguishable from the genuine article by naive consumers? The latter was and is still a genuine problem; what is wrong with learning from others' successes? It will always happen to some extent and it's better for consumers if it happens as much as possible.

by roc 14y ago

rednukleus 14y ago

There is nothing in any of these patent cases that even approaches the "shameless knock-off" territory. There are products coming out of China that are counterfits, or very close to existing products - and they should be banned. You would have to be both blind and stupid to not be able to tell the difference between any two Android and iOS phones.

roc 14y ago
Yes, it's quite a bit like that old saying about pornography "I know it when I see it". But that hardly changes the point that there is no reform that can both prevent such suits and protect our interests as consumers.
fkdjs 14y ago
A shameless knock off copies _everything_. A shameless rolex copies everything from a rolex. Rolex doesn't copy anything from their knockoffs. There has to be one way copying to classify a product as a knockoff. Instead, Apple has copied many features from android, so it's not a case of samsung / android being knockoff products. If anything, consumers have benefited from copying! Everyone complained about iOS notifications, then they copied android notifications. And consumers benefited. The fact that we are even having this discussion is nauseating. It's painfully obvious what the outcome should be in terms of what's best for consumers. A rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation.
- adrianbg 14y ago
  ... a rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation and with less money pointlessly wasted on lawyers.

guelo 14y ago

How does a shameless "knock-off" hurt consumers? I own a knock-off Rolex and I enjoy it just fine.

moskie 14y ago
It can hurt you if you were conned into paying a Rolex-level price, and/or thought you were buying an actual Rolex. And maybe you weren't, but I imagine plenty of people are.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I think this (intentionally or not) points out some of why people want Apple to beat Samsung. Not just win, but beat Samsung. It ties in precisely with what the grandparent is saying. People want to choose sides and, for whatever god-forsaken reason, there are still people who haven't used it since 2.0 convinced that Android is massively inferior, and thus they see this as Apple beating a knock-off. But it's not, and anyone whose seen Samsung's sales figures knows that.
  - moskie 14y ago
    I agree. And I think another issue here is that it isn't the case that Samsung attempts to con people into thinking they're buying an Apple device. Even if you get up in arms saying that Samsung/Android copied certain features from Apple, it would an entirely separate can of worms if people regularly bought Samsung devices, thinking they were buying an Apple one.
- ars 14y ago
  > or thought you were buying an actual Rolex He said Knock-off, not counterfeit. A knock-off looks like the original but does not falsely advertise itself as actually being the original.
  - moskie 14y ago
    I guess this is just semantics, but look where this redirects to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off "Counterfeit consumer goods, commonly called knock-offs, are counterfeit or imitation products offered for sale."

adrianbg 14y ago

What is knock-off to you? A similar product manufactured for less or an inferior counterfeit indistinguishable from the genuine article by naive consumers? The latter was and is still a genuine problem; what is wrong with learning from others' successes? It will always happen to some extent and it's better for consumers if it happens as much as possible.