7 ms·
This, and inevitable references to Braun, have no place in comparison with the Samsung trial. Samsung made competing products so similar to the effect, and inde
by 10char 14y ago
This, and inevitable references to Braun, have no place in comparison with the Samsung trial. Samsung made competing products so similar to the effect, and indeed with the purpose, of confusing consumers.
The recent rise in Apple bashing and calls of hypocrisy is even stranger in historical context[1]. Perhaps more of us should try and empathize with Apple's situation and history before passing fashionable judgement.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
- enjo 14y agoWe're not supposed to criticize Apple for straight up abusing patent law because they failed at straight up abusing copyright law in the past?
- Steko 14y agoThe core idea of one company egregiously violating another's marks/trade dress is nearly identical to the Samsung situation. The difference I suspect is that Apple will pay up the same way they did when they just went ahead and named products identically to other companies' products (iPhone belonged to Cisco, etc.).
- beedogs 14y agoJesus. Is this a troll post, or are you being serious?
- adgar 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law