4 ms·

This clock is a "slavish copy" of the Swiss clock, down to the weight of each element and the presence of the red hand. You can't possibly say it's an 'homage'

by gergles 14y ago

This clock is a "slavish copy" of the Swiss clock, down to the weight of each element and the presence of the red hand. You can't possibly say it's an 'homage' any more than running the Mona Lisa through a color Xerox would be. Edit: It appears to be merely "almost" identical to the Swiss clock and instead is a slavish copy of the Austrian clock, given the weight of the minute hash marks.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
But one question is, does Apple's copy do any damage to the original designer? It is obvious that Samsung is hoping to "steal" iPhone sales; it is obvious that Apple did not do Braun's defunct products any harm. But how about this case? I'm undecided, but I still think Apple should have licensed the design.
ghshephard 14y ago
The point is, Apple makes no bones about it being a carbon copy. If you asked them, they would throw their hands up in frustration and say, that is the entire point. They absolutely intended for anyone who see's this clock to immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original. Traditionally, designers have appreciated these little nods of respect. I'm not sure what happened with SBB, but I'm sure it will play out to their benefit. In the case of Samsung, Apple _wanted_ Samsung to pull their product from the market. In the case of SBB, it would be slap to their face if Apple just decided to yank their clock off the iPad. Hopefully it will all work out for the best - Apple will license the likeness for some moderate fee, and everyone walks away happy.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original // s/were paying tribute to/copied. Surely the point is that an ethical business seeks license from those they choose to copy before doing so. It is not at all respectful to copy verbatim without seeking any form of warrant or approval.

by gergles 14y ago

gurkendoktor 14y ago

But one question is, does Apple's copy do any damage to the original designer? It is obvious that Samsung is hoping to "steal" iPhone sales; it is obvious that Apple did not do Braun's defunct products any harm. But how about this case? I'm undecided, but I still think Apple should have licensed the design.

ghshephard 14y ago

The point is, Apple makes no bones about it being a carbon copy. If you asked them, they would throw their hands up in frustration and say, that is the entire point. They absolutely intended for anyone who see's this clock to immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original. Traditionally, designers have appreciated these little nods of respect. I'm not sure what happened with SBB, but I'm sure it will play out to their benefit. In the case of Samsung, Apple _wanted_ Samsung to pull their product from the market. In the case of SBB, it would be slap to their face if Apple just decided to yank their clock off the iPad. Hopefully it will all work out for the best - Apple will license the likeness for some moderate fee, and everyone walks away happy.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original // s/were paying tribute to/copied. Surely the point is that an ethical business seeks license from those they choose to copy before doing so. It is not at all respectful to copy verbatim without seeking any form of warrant or approval.