10 ms·

Sorry, I don't understand the satire here. It sounds like you're mimicking the response to claims that Apple stole designs from Braun? But the two situations ar

by Cushman 14y ago

Sorry, I don't understand the satire here. It sounds like you're mimicking the response to claims that Apple stole designs from Braun? But the two situations are nothing alike -- cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products is a far cry from duplicating a trademarked image more or less exactly. It seems more likely you're trying to dig on Apple for going thermonuclear on trade dress while at the same time stealing somebody else's intellectual property. In which case you have it backwards, and the satire here should be something about how Apple has no right copying someone else's hard work just to make a quick buck, and that a numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors seems obvious now only because they went to so much effort to work it out. Except that's not very funny, because it's exactly right. I doubt if even the most hardcore Apple fanatics would argue SBB doesn't at least have a case. So they'll sue, and Apple might pay a license fee, or change the clock, or argue that the clock has some reason for not being a valid trademark or infringing. And my only question is, if that case goes to trial and SBB wins and Apple has to stop shipping that clock face and pay some compensation, will HN fill up with satirical posts ranting about how you can't copyright a minimal clock face in white, black and red, how this judgment is anticompetitive, stifling to innovation and will surely be thrown out in a higher court very soon now, how much an indictment it is of the copyright system in general? Because that would be a funny joke. Seriously, this community has been weird about Apple of late.

creamyhorror 14y ago
the satire here should be something about how Apple has no right copying someone else's hard work just to make a quick buck, and that a numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors seems obvious now only because they went to so much effort to work it out. There's nothing satirical about that. It's pretty obvious this is about perceived hypocrisy on Apple's part. Apple sues for trade dress violations and has now been caught for reproducing someone else's design. It acted against what it perceived as a crime against itself and yet committed the same crime. Simple hypocrisy, aka moral inconsistency in actions - nothing weird about it. If SBB wins, the natural response will be to nod and say Apple got its just deserts. Some people will argue these designs shouldn't be copyrightable in the first place, but that's a separate criticism and does not invalidate the point of hypocrisy in the first place. (Does it really surprise you that some in the community aren't happy about Apple's win over the patents?)
- Cushman 14y ago
  > There's nothing satirical about that. It's pretty obvious this is about perceived hypocrisy on Apple's part. That's what I'm saying. This is pretty clear-cut. There's going to be a lawsuit. It's definitely ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical, but when does it get actually funny? Aside from the fact that it's IP infringement, this doesn't have a lot to do with the Samsung suit, and it doesn't even have that to do with Braun, which is whence the concept of "homage" enters the Apple lexicon. So where be the satire here?
  - creamyhorror 14y ago
    Hypocrisy and irony are funny. It's pretty much standard practice to ridicule hypocrites (see pretty much every issue of The Onion). If someone criticizes an action and then does that very thing or worse, people lampoon him. I don't know what you find so perplexing about that. The grandparent poster was satirizing Apple's hypocrisy, not the state of design patent/trade dress laws. The satire was not about those laws being too strong. It was about how Apple says one thing but does another.
varunsrin 14y ago
People probably feel that it is hypocritical to sue one company for copying your designs, and then turn around and copy designs off someone else, especially when they happen right a few months apart. Personally, my moral compass immediately feels that this is worse than just plain copying, and I assume that is why people are reacting with a stronger anti-Apple sentiment here.
- Cushman 14y ago
  This is a digression, but I have trouble with the idea of hypocrisy in general. It's difficult for me to conceive that, morally, espousing wrong beliefs and adhering to them in one's personal life is better than espousing wrong beliefs while at least doing the right thing oneself. (Assuming the people who made these decisions have any interaction with each other:) If intellectual property is well grounded, Apple is right to defend their own, but wrong to copy others'. If it is not, they are wrong to defend their own, but justified in using others'. Yes, they are wrong in either case, but tu quoque is the sorry refuge taken to avoid having to admit that they are also right in either.
  - ajuc 14y ago
    I think hypocrisy is used most often when there's no consensus whether some beliefs are bad, and supporters of one view use hypocrisy of supporters of the other to make an argument. When someone says "murdering people is OK" and then doesn't murder - nobody is going to accuse him of hypocrisy ;)
    - anonymfus 14y ago
      Many people accused Hitler in hypocrisy. Then he killed itself. Sorry, it's a horrible and non-factual joke. But your theory is still wrong. There is consensus in society that racism is bad and racist with friends of other race is a classical example of hypocrisy. And if by lack of consensus you mean existence of other view then murdering example is wrong because it suppose lack of consensus and your theory is tautology.
Nikker 14y ago
This sounds like it would likely be a Trademark infringement suit, which would be expected. Trademarks, if unprotected can lose their value. Having showing it on 100+ million of your devices should meet that requirement.
raverbashing 14y ago
And the funny thing is Mondaine clocks may be good for a train station, where they are meant to be read at a distance, by people with less than 20/20 vision But it doesn't present any real advantage on an iPhone Too much skeumorphism again
- Someone 14y ago
  1. Clocks are fashion accessories, too. That is why http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/ http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/ sells watches with the clock's face. 2. I guess many people will try and read the clock while not wearing glasses
bad_user 14y ago
So people here are trying to compare this with Apple vs Samsung, but that's apples to oranges. SBB does not claim copyright or a design patent (although to increase their chances they might claim that too). Instead SBB claims that the clock design is their trademark. This would be similar to Samsung putting the famous bitten apple on Galaxy phones. And the problem with trademarks is that if you don't defend it, you lose it. It's not like with patents or copyrights were you can ignore infringement or selectively sue companies, depending on how much money you can milk.
_pferreir_ 14y ago
> cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products Here in Switzerland you see clocks like these in pretty much every train station. I wouldn't call it exactly a "defunct" product. Mondaine sells this same design in a variety of products: just do a google image search and you will see some of those. ...and it's not that SBB is suing apple over the concept of a "numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors". They just look exactly the same. And when that's the case, I guess there's not much one can say.
cstuder 14y ago
I'm not sure the SBB will sue Apple. Their relationship is a little bit more complex than mere two unrelated companies: Some context: The iPhone has a huge penetration rate in Switzerland (2.9 million devices sold for a population of 8 million people). Switzerland also has very good public transportation, held together by the train system of the SBB. And therefore, almost every iPhone user has the SBB Mobile App installed (http://itunes.apple.com/ch/app/sbb-mobile/id294855237?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/ch/app/sbb-mobile/id294855237?mt=8), 60-80% from what I heard. Which would put the install base to 1.5 to 2 million installations. The elephant in the room is now this: Within this app, you are able to buy tickets. Train tickets, bus tickets, boat tickets. Not via in-app purchases, everything goes through the SBB ticketing system. This has been working for three years now. Apple never blocked the app, despite it being in violation of some of the more prominent rules of the App Store. My sources within SBB claim that there is no special agreement in place, mere toleration by Apple. I don't know if that's true, but one thing is for certain: The SBB has little interest of fighting with Apple on this front. And Apple might not want to alienate such a huge user base, who would probably feel more loyalty to the SBB than to Apple, but that's pure speculation on my part. On the other hand is the SBB fiercly proud of their design achievments, the clock in particular. Maybe that part of the SBB company (30 000 employees) doesn't care about electronic ticketing and will pursue Apple anyway.
- chmars 14y ago
  Are there any public transport companies that sell tickets as in-app purchases?
- roc 14y ago
  Has Apple ever cracked down on apps that allow the purchase of physical things for not using in-App purchases? IIRC the only time this has gotten sticky, is when it comes to apps that allow users to buy access to more content that is accessed by that app. (e.g. buying new issues of digital magazines, buying access to new in-game content, buying new ebooks, buying new digital music, etc)
- hamrickdavid 14y ago
  In-App purchases are for digital goods only (Content, Functionality, Services, Subscriptions). You are completely free to sell real/physical goods (ie. a train ticket) via your own payment system. https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-... "You must deliver your digital good or service within your app. Do not use In-App Purchase to sell real-world goods and services."
mtgx 14y ago
Hey, Apple went after a freaking groceries store for using the Apl name in some other country. If they can do that, I think the watch company can and should go after Apple for doing this. And yes, this is shameless hypocrisy.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vavb 14y ago
But they haven't copied that clock at all! Its only an image an iPad! The real clock has a silver metal border and can be hung on a wall. An iPad can't be hung on a wall. Therefore Apple didn't copy. QED Wouldn't surprise me if they follow that line in court actually -.- I'm predicting a payout personally. I also think the second hand looks stupid, but that's just me I guess.

by Cushman 14y ago

creamyhorror 14y ago

the satire here should be something about how Apple has no right copying someone else's hard work just to make a quick buck, and that a numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors seems obvious now only because they went to so much effort to work it out. There's nothing satirical about that. It's pretty obvious this is about perceived hypocrisy on Apple's part. Apple sues for trade dress violations and has now been caught for reproducing someone else's design. It acted against what it perceived as a crime against itself and yet committed the same crime. Simple hypocrisy, aka moral inconsistency in actions - nothing weird about it. If SBB wins, the natural response will be to nod and say Apple got its just deserts. Some people will argue these designs shouldn't be copyrightable in the first place, but that's a separate criticism and does not invalidate the point of hypocrisy in the first place. (Does it really surprise you that some in the community aren't happy about Apple's win over the patents?)

Cushman 14y ago
> There's nothing satirical about that. It's pretty obvious this is about perceived hypocrisy on Apple's part. That's what I'm saying. This is pretty clear-cut. There's going to be a lawsuit. It's definitely ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical, but when does it get actually funny? Aside from the fact that it's IP infringement, this doesn't have a lot to do with the Samsung suit, and it doesn't even have that to do with Braun, which is whence the concept of "homage" enters the Apple lexicon. So where be the satire here?
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  Hypocrisy and irony are funny. It's pretty much standard practice to ridicule hypocrites (see pretty much every issue of The Onion). If someone criticizes an action and then does that very thing or worse, people lampoon him. I don't know what you find so perplexing about that. The grandparent poster was satirizing Apple's hypocrisy, not the state of design patent/trade dress laws. The satire was not about those laws being too strong. It was about how Apple says one thing but does another.

varunsrin 14y ago

People probably feel that it is hypocritical to sue one company for copying your designs, and then turn around and copy designs off someone else, especially when they happen right a few months apart. Personally, my moral compass immediately feels that this is worse than just plain copying, and I assume that is why people are reacting with a stronger anti-Apple sentiment here.

Cushman 14y ago
This is a digression, but I have trouble with the idea of hypocrisy in general. It's difficult for me to conceive that, morally, espousing wrong beliefs and adhering to them in one's personal life is better than espousing wrong beliefs while at least doing the right thing oneself. (Assuming the people who made these decisions have any interaction with each other:) If intellectual property is well grounded, Apple is right to defend their own, but wrong to copy others'. If it is not, they are wrong to defend their own, but justified in using others'. Yes, they are wrong in either case, but tu quoque is the sorry refuge taken to avoid having to admit that they are also right in either.
- ajuc 14y ago
  I think hypocrisy is used most often when there's no consensus whether some beliefs are bad, and supporters of one view use hypocrisy of supporters of the other to make an argument. When someone says "murdering people is OK" and then doesn't murder - nobody is going to accuse him of hypocrisy ;)
  - anonymfus 14y ago
    Many people accused Hitler in hypocrisy. Then he killed itself. Sorry, it's a horrible and non-factual joke. But your theory is still wrong. There is consensus in society that racism is bad and racist with friends of other race is a classical example of hypocrisy. And if by lack of consensus you mean existence of other view then murdering example is wrong because it suppose lack of consensus and your theory is tautology.

Nikker 14y ago

This sounds like it would likely be a Trademark infringement suit, which would be expected. Trademarks, if unprotected can lose their value. Having showing it on 100+ million of your devices should meet that requirement.

raverbashing 14y ago

And the funny thing is Mondaine clocks may be good for a train station, where they are meant to be read at a distance, by people with less than 20/20 vision But it doesn't present any real advantage on an iPhone Too much skeumorphism again

Someone 14y ago
1. Clocks are fashion accessories, too. That is why http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/ http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/ sells watches with the clock's face. 2. I guess many people will try and read the clock while not wearing glasses

bad_user 14y ago

So people here are trying to compare this with Apple vs Samsung, but that's apples to oranges. SBB does not claim copyright or a design patent (although to increase their chances they might claim that too). Instead SBB claims that the clock design is their trademark. This would be similar to Samsung putting the famous bitten apple on Galaxy phones. And the problem with trademarks is that if you don't defend it, you lose it. It's not like with patents or copyrights were you can ignore infringement or selectively sue companies, depending on how much money you can milk.

_pferreir_ 14y ago

> cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products Here in Switzerland you see clocks like these in pretty much every train station. I wouldn't call it exactly a "defunct" product. Mondaine sells this same design in a variety of products: just do a google image search and you will see some of those. ...and it's not that SBB is suing apple over the concept of a "numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors". They just look exactly the same. And when that's the case, I guess there's not much one can say.

cstuder 14y ago

I'm not sure the SBB will sue Apple. Their relationship is a little bit more complex than mere two unrelated companies: Some context: The iPhone has a huge penetration rate in Switzerland (2.9 million devices sold for a population of 8 million people). Switzerland also has very good public transportation, held together by the train system of the SBB. And therefore, almost every iPhone user has the SBB Mobile App installed (http://itunes.apple.com/ch/app/sbb-mobile/id294855237?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/ch/app/sbb-mobile/id294855237?mt=8), 60-80% from what I heard. Which would put the install base to 1.5 to 2 million installations. The elephant in the room is now this: Within this app, you are able to buy tickets. Train tickets, bus tickets, boat tickets. Not via in-app purchases, everything goes through the SBB ticketing system. This has been working for three years now. Apple never blocked the app, despite it being in violation of some of the more prominent rules of the App Store. My sources within SBB claim that there is no special agreement in place, mere toleration by Apple. I don't know if that's true, but one thing is for certain: The SBB has little interest of fighting with Apple on this front. And Apple might not want to alienate such a huge user base, who would probably feel more loyalty to the SBB than to Apple, but that's pure speculation on my part. On the other hand is the SBB fiercly proud of their design achievments, the clock in particular. Maybe that part of the SBB company (30 000 employees) doesn't care about electronic ticketing and will pursue Apple anyway.

chmars 14y ago
Are there any public transport companies that sell tickets as in-app purchases?
roc 14y ago
Has Apple ever cracked down on apps that allow the purchase of physical things for not using in-App purchases? IIRC the only time this has gotten sticky, is when it comes to apps that allow users to buy access to more content that is accessed by that app. (e.g. buying new issues of digital magazines, buying access to new in-game content, buying new ebooks, buying new digital music, etc)
hamrickdavid 14y ago
In-App purchases are for digital goods only (Content, Functionality, Services, Subscriptions). You are completely free to sell real/physical goods (ie. a train ticket) via your own payment system. https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-... "You must deliver your digital good or service within your app. Do not use In-App Purchase to sell real-world goods and services."

mtgx 14y ago

Hey, Apple went after a freaking groceries store for using the Apl name in some other country. If they can do that, I think the watch company can and should go after Apple for doing this. And yes, this is shameless hypocrisy.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vavb 14y ago

But they haven't copied that clock at all! Its only an image an iPad! The real clock has a silver metal border and can be hung on a wall. An iPad can't be hung on a wall. Therefore Apple didn't copy. QED Wouldn't surprise me if they follow that line in court actually -.- I'm predicting a payout personally. I also think the second hand looks stupid, but that's just me I guess.