9 ms·

Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple

by ellyagg 14y ago

Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money. This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-free "blockbuster" after another. The other day I read a history of the making of White Men Can't Jump: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8266665/an-oral-history-ron-shelton-basketball-comedy-white-men-jump http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8266665/an-oral-history-... The head of Fox at the time, Joe Roth, mentions, "That movie wouldn't get made today. Us moviemaking guys, the studios, have less courage to make a movie like that today with the kind of racial, sexual overtones." It's sad. I would appreciate a big budget movie studio that did not consistently churn out the safest derivative crap they can. I do appreciate that there's one consumer electronics company that attempts and succeeds at novel, high risk products. Of course, there's a good chance that risk taking spark died recently, but I have appreciated its presence until now. Maybe patents are bad, but I don't think is a case where that stance holds much emotional appeal other than to those who like to see Apple lose. Most people think Samsung clearly did something shady here and deserves to be punished.

cageface 14y ago
I don't have any particular loyalty to Samsung but these cases set a chilling precedent for the platform that looks likely to dominate the computing industry for at least the next decade. There's much more at stake here than a few billion dollars and a few icons and scrolling techniques. If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new ideas. Apple's successful use of the broken patent system sends exactly the wrong signal.
- angryasian 14y ago
  Not only that, its going to set innovating in the mobile space back even farther. While Apple outlines every decision meticulously for planned obsolescence, Google and others take a more throw something out there, see if it works and run with it approach. With both strongly competing it pushes the entire industry forward faster.
  - forensic 14y ago
    It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs attempting to cash in Apple's R&D. It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in alleyways. Competition would be if Samsung improves on Apple's designs to create something superior.
    - olalonde 14y ago
      > It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. When I bought my Samsung Galaxy SII, it was about the same price as an iPhone. > It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. That's your personal opinion. I personally prefer Android to iOS and so do many people.
      - forensic 14y ago
        You don't get it. Samsung COPIED Apple, so when you enjoy your Samsung phone, you are enjoying the fruits of Apple's research, development, design, market testing, etc. The majority of the creative, intellectual substance that is contained in the Samsung phones originated in Cupertino. Point being that if we want companies to create new things rather than just copy old things, we need to give greater rewards to the actual creative people who take risks and come up with the new ideas. The people who jump on board and say "I can copy that!" really deserve no consideration at all.
    - creamyhorror 14y ago
      > Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in alleyways. My goodness. Samsung designs may imitate Apple's to some debatable extent, but they're not labeling their products with an Apple logo. The way I see it, TV makers imitate each others' designs and features all the time, and so do car makers and fridge makers. > It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. Your generalisation is extreme. Surely Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. do innovate (with reference to their legacy in the wider field of electronics)? And they are certainly competing. The very definition of competition is to sell a product that is a close substitute for another. Your assertion seems to make innovation the only thing that matters for competition, which it isn't. Society would be better off generally if competition (of all forms) increased in more markets.
- Apocryphon 14y ago
  "If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new ideas." But wouldn't this then spark greater innovation? Innovation doesn't come from slavishly imitating what came before. Revolutionary new designs and UI will come from those bold enough to seek vision that has no chance of infringing upon previous patents.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    No, it won't. It will hurt innovation because every damn thing is going to have to go through a committee of lawyers before being approved, and it will hurt innovation because the idea that innovation always involves making something brand-new and from whole cloth is fucking retarded. Also the idea of a patent for pinch-and-zoom makes about as much sense as a patent for 'a vehicle powered by steam'. Patents are about implementation, not ideas.
    - Apocryphon 14y ago
      But what if this spurns designers and engineers to create designs that are completely different from before, because anything too similar is out of bounds? Wouldn't that drive them to think more different and wildly and uniquely? We may get a lot of stupid failed attempts out of this, but at least it will put the kibosh on "me-too" designs.
      - bluedanieru 14y ago
        Maximizing the implemented portion of the solution space is not the same as innovating.
dkrich 14y ago
What did Samsung do that is shady, that Apple itself didn't? Apple was the first to market with the most-polished device, but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. Who cares? Apple was already winning on their merits. I have a feeling people will look back on this as a major turning point in Apple's history. They are starting to look like a paranoid ruler worried about an imminent attack instead of playing offense they way they used to.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. You're forgetting about the Newton.
  - dkrich 14y ago
    Right, any computer with square icons arranged in a table format must have originated from the Newton. How could anybody have figured out to put icons into rows and columns? But seriously, Palm had an SDK and a phone with a touch interface and downloadable apps a good three to four years before the iPhone was introduced. Any brick with a touch interface does not fall into that category I'm afraid.
    - Anechoic 14y ago
      You wrote "they completely ripped off the design and layout" of the Palm Pilot. The iOS layout owes as much, if not more to the Newton than to the Pilot. Any brick with a touch interface does not fall into that category I'm afraid. Absolutely. For example, Microsoft managed to develop a touch phone interface that owes very little to the iPhone. Hopefully Samsung can do the same.
    - glenra 14y ago
      The Newton had an SDK, a vibrant developer community, and a user interface that was one big touchscreen rather than having physical buttons - in 1993. Palm actually got its start selling software for the Newton, specifically their "Graffiti" recognition engine. If you want to argue about who had specific features first, Newton will usually win - PalmOS was stripped-down to be cheap and dependent on the PC it docked to whereas Newton was conceived as a standalone device so Newton could do things like print or send and receive a fax from day one - Palm got most of those features later if at all.
beedogs 14y ago
> I do appreciate that there's one consumer electronics company that attempts and succeeds at novel, high risk products. Yeah; I like Nintendo, too. Oh, wait: were you talking about another singular company?
jaekwon 14y ago
This case is about the right to sell what is analogous to the movie theatre, the projector, and the camera. Apple found a good way to package them together, and Samsung imitated this, but offered something nevertheless different: a more open and distributed system. It is Apple and their App store policy that will drive the manufacture of cookie cutter Apps on their homogenous environment.

by ellyagg 14y ago

cageface 14y ago

I don't have any particular loyalty to Samsung but these cases set a chilling precedent for the platform that looks likely to dominate the computing industry for at least the next decade. There's much more at stake here than a few billion dollars and a few icons and scrolling techniques. If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new ideas. Apple's successful use of the broken patent system sends exactly the wrong signal.

angryasian 14y ago
Not only that, its going to set innovating in the mobile space back even farther. While Apple outlines every decision meticulously for planned obsolescence, Google and others take a more throw something out there, see if it works and run with it approach. With both strongly competing it pushes the entire industry forward faster.
- forensic 14y ago
  It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs attempting to cash in Apple's R&D. It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in alleyways. Competition would be if Samsung improves on Apple's designs to create something superior.
  - olalonde 14y ago
    > It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. When I bought my Samsung Galaxy SII, it was about the same price as an iPhone. > It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. That's your personal opinion. I personally prefer Android to iOS and so do many people.
    - forensic 14y ago
      You don't get it. Samsung COPIED Apple, so when you enjoy your Samsung phone, you are enjoying the fruits of Apple's research, development, design, market testing, etc. The majority of the creative, intellectual substance that is contained in the Samsung phones originated in Cupertino. Point being that if we want companies to create new things rather than just copy old things, we need to give greater rewards to the actual creative people who take risks and come up with the new ideas. The people who jump on board and say "I can copy that!" really deserve no consideration at all.
  - creamyhorror 14y ago
    > Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in alleyways. My goodness. Samsung designs may imitate Apple's to some debatable extent, but they're not labeling their products with an Apple logo. The way I see it, TV makers imitate each others' designs and features all the time, and so do car makers and fridge makers. > It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. Your generalisation is extreme. Surely Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. do innovate (with reference to their legacy in the wider field of electronics)? And they are certainly competing. The very definition of competition is to sell a product that is a close substitute for another. Your assertion seems to make innovation the only thing that matters for competition, which it isn't. Society would be better off generally if competition (of all forms) increased in more markets.
Apocryphon 14y ago
"If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new ideas." But wouldn't this then spark greater innovation? Innovation doesn't come from slavishly imitating what came before. Revolutionary new designs and UI will come from those bold enough to seek vision that has no chance of infringing upon previous patents.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  No, it won't. It will hurt innovation because every damn thing is going to have to go through a committee of lawyers before being approved, and it will hurt innovation because the idea that innovation always involves making something brand-new and from whole cloth is fucking retarded. Also the idea of a patent for pinch-and-zoom makes about as much sense as a patent for 'a vehicle powered by steam'. Patents are about implementation, not ideas.
  - Apocryphon 14y ago
    But what if this spurns designers and engineers to create designs that are completely different from before, because anything too similar is out of bounds? Wouldn't that drive them to think more different and wildly and uniquely? We may get a lot of stupid failed attempts out of this, but at least it will put the kibosh on "me-too" designs.
    - bluedanieru 14y ago
      Maximizing the implemented portion of the solution space is not the same as innovating.

dkrich 14y ago

What did Samsung do that is shady, that Apple itself didn't? Apple was the first to market with the most-polished device, but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. Who cares? Apple was already winning on their merits. I have a feeling people will look back on this as a major turning point in Apple's history. They are starting to look like a paranoid ruler worried about an imminent attack instead of playing offense they way they used to.

Anechoic 14y ago
but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. You're forgetting about the Newton.
- dkrich 14y ago
  Right, any computer with square icons arranged in a table format must have originated from the Newton. How could anybody have figured out to put icons into rows and columns? But seriously, Palm had an SDK and a phone with a touch interface and downloadable apps a good three to four years before the iPhone was introduced. Any brick with a touch interface does not fall into that category I'm afraid.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    You wrote "they completely ripped off the design and layout" of the Palm Pilot. The iOS layout owes as much, if not more to the Newton than to the Pilot. Any brick with a touch interface does not fall into that category I'm afraid. Absolutely. For example, Microsoft managed to develop a touch phone interface that owes very little to the iPhone. Hopefully Samsung can do the same.
  - glenra 14y ago
    The Newton had an SDK, a vibrant developer community, and a user interface that was one big touchscreen rather than having physical buttons - in 1993. Palm actually got its start selling software for the Newton, specifically their "Graffiti" recognition engine. If you want to argue about who had specific features first, Newton will usually win - PalmOS was stripped-down to be cheap and dependent on the PC it docked to whereas Newton was conceived as a standalone device so Newton could do things like print or send and receive a fax from day one - Palm got most of those features later if at all.

beedogs 14y ago

> I do appreciate that there's one consumer electronics company that attempts and succeeds at novel, high risk products. Yeah; I like Nintendo, too. Oh, wait: were you talking about another singular company?

jaekwon 14y ago

This case is about the right to sell what is analogous to the movie theatre, the projector, and the camera. Apple found a good way to package them together, and Samsung imitated this, but offered something nevertheless different: a more open and distributed system. It is Apple and their App store policy that will drive the manufacture of cookie cutter Apps on their homogenous environment.