4 ms·

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turni

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great. On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed. Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it. For me the morale right or wrong is the following: make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value. copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others. Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.

thomasf1 14y ago
It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps. It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives: If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it. If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.
205guy 14y ago
When Apple copied from Xerox PARC, was the UI part of an already successful, profitable mass-market product? No, they stole a research idea and ran with it (though it's just as likely to have been patented). But when Apple has a successful product that everyone is buying, and Samsung makes a product that looks and acts like it, I think they were definitely trying to cause confusion and take market share. If you fly to Europe with a fake Rolex and get caught (they do have customs officers trained to look for and detect fakes), they don't just confiscate the fake or turn you away, you get prosecuted. Morally, I'm not sure why that should apply to luxury goods and not anything with a distinctive look and feel.
- coecoventures 14y ago
  Apple also stole employees from PARC, some of which are still working at Apple. They brought their talent with them.

thomasf1 14y ago

It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps. It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives: If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it. If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.

205guy 14y ago

When Apple copied from Xerox PARC, was the UI part of an already successful, profitable mass-market product? No, they stole a research idea and ran with it (though it's just as likely to have been patented). But when Apple has a successful product that everyone is buying, and Samsung makes a product that looks and acts like it, I think they were definitely trying to cause confusion and take market share. If you fly to Europe with a fake Rolex and get caught (they do have customs officers trained to look for and detect fakes), they don't just confiscate the fake or turn you away, you get prosecuted. Morally, I'm not sure why that should apply to luxury goods and not anything with a distinctive look and feel.

coecoventures 14y ago
Apple also stole employees from PARC, some of which are still working at Apple. They brought their talent with them.