7 ms·

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 whe

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.
    - ajuc 14y ago
      If someone thinks of himself as racist, then he probably don't think racism is bad, so there's no consensus. EDIT: eh, I've read your post again and I'm wrong, you're right, it's the same situation. But is racist with with friends of other races really classical example of hypocrisy? I hadn't encountered it (but I live in monocultural country).
      - batista 14y ago
        >But is racist with with friends of other races really classical example of hypocrisy? I hadn't encountered it He probably means the classic "I'm not racist, I have black friends and all, but blacks in general do [this and that]". Which is often considered a classic example of hypocrisy but I don't think it is. In a lot of cases it's not even racism. E.g a guy could have Mexican friends (in the US or Mexico) but be against mexican illegal immigrants. This is often taken to mean he is racist, but in actuality he is against illegal immigration, not against a race in general (he might consider that low end jobs are numbered, or that wages in those jobs are getting lower due to increased competition from illegal immigrants, or that lots of hungry, unemployed opportunity seekers from Mexico could resort to crime to feed themselves etc).
  - gizzlon 14y ago
    It's not. Saying that everyone should murder (all the time), and not doing it, would be hypocrisy. But yeah, you're right. People would probably be distracted by the whole "murder" thing. Even if there's no consensus on whether some beliefs are good or bad, such as in politics, doesn't hypocrisy show some sort of "character flaw" in the perpetrator? It's dishonest to push views you don't hold yourself, or rules you don't even try to live by.
    - ajuc 14y ago
      Yeah, my bad, your example is better. Regarding showing dishonesty - yes, but "supporters of X are dishonest" is "ad personam" - that's poor argument. Better to use hypocrisy to show "even supporters of X don't really believe their view is right, so it probably isn't".
      - batista 14y ago
        >Better to use hypocrisy to show "even supporters of X don't really believe their view is right, so it probably isn't". Still, not a good argument. Their view could be right, whether they do really believe it or not. E.g a politician could say "don't steal", and he could be stealing himself. That he is hypocritical about it, doesn't mean stealing is "probably" right.
- no_more_death 14y ago
  Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but knowing what you're doing is really a black mark against you. Hypocrisy implies a blatantly willful action. It also obliterates your argument. It is arguing against your own case.
- sbov 14y ago
  Hypocrisy is the antithesis of the golden rule, which is why I tend to have a problem with it. It's not anything that automatically refutes someones arguments, it just tells me that when it comes to that subject, they're an asshole. And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    The problem with hypocrisy in general is that when combined with the human propensity for pattern matching and abstract generalization, if you think hard enough everyone becomes a hypocrite.
    - rooshdi 14y ago
      Well, everyone is a hypocrite to a certain degree. It's the degree in which they're hypocritical which can be a problem.
  - batista 14y ago
    >And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments. But that's too bad. Better to do what a hypocrite proposes if it's the right thing, than to ignore it because of what he does. Here's a nice article on the topic: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room? etc: http://imomus.livejournal.com/362894.html http://imomus.livejournal.com/362894.html
- grhino 14y ago
  The morality of an individual or organization is determined by: 1. What they do 2. What they say And in that order. For politicians and celebrities with a large audience, it's possible that what they say matters more than what they do for the global good. However, the actions an individual takes can wipe out a legacy of saying the right thing.
batista 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. Only those two are in totally unrelated fields, namely some railway clock and a mobile phone.
- SteveJobless 14y ago
  Does it matter if they are in unrelated fields ? And if Mondaine is selling hand watches with that design, and they, paid for the license, why shouldn't Apple pay too ? If my intellectual property is used in an "unrelated field" does it cease to be my intellectual property ?
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
I think it's interesting to note (as the article does), that Apple has attacked other parties for "paying homage" to the looks of the Apple clocks. I personally think these two clocks are different enough, but if I'm the owner of that Swiss trademark, you can bet I'm suing, before Apple comes after me for using their design!
roc 14y ago
The big distinction that seems to be getting missed is that Apple isn't selling wall clocks with this design. So they aren't remotely competing with the designs that they 'copy' from. Samsung is copying Apple, arguably intentionally, to create directly competing products. This is a very different thing.
- SteveJobless 14y ago
  Sure, nice workaround. But the swiss design is actually used on any watches. And because many people use their phones also as watches we can therefore declare that Apple is a competitor of Mondaine. And stealing is stealing, no matter what is the purpose, as far as I know. But what do I know right ? I'm not even an Apple fan.
- vacri 14y ago
  Nice reframing there. The Mondaine clockface isn't just used in wall clocks.
  - roc 14y ago
    I'm not saying Apple is right. I'm saying the contexts are wildly different. They probably ought to cough up some sort of fee, or change if the designers don't want them to use it. But one face on one app of a multifunction device is simply not the same as aping a plurality of features and designs of a competing device.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Phones compete with watches though. Personally, I don't really care about people making knockoff Mondaine watches, I just find this funny and feel it is that peculiar form of justice that is generally known as "live by the sword, die by the sword". Is like cannibals being left to their own devices till they get bored and eat each other.
  - phaus 14y ago
    I'd go so far as to say that phones compete with watches and physical clocks. I personally can't stand to wear a watch, and I almost always have an electronic device on my person. I don't even own a traditional clock anymore.
ahoyhere 14y ago
Do you not see a difference between a concerted effort to copy by multiple parties, with meetings and documents circulating which basically say "This is what we should copy," vs potentially one or two designers alone copying something which is not recognized as a trademark to anyone but an expert in European clock design? I'm both a Swiss Modern design nut and lover of clocks. I not only didn't recognize the clock as specifically Swiss, although it has that look, I had no idea it was a copyrighted design. Chances are very low that a manager at Apple would notice what I didn't.

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.
  - ajuc 14y ago
    If someone thinks of himself as racist, then he probably don't think racism is bad, so there's no consensus. EDIT: eh, I've read your post again and I'm wrong, you're right, it's the same situation. But is racist with with friends of other races really classical example of hypocrisy? I hadn't encountered it (but I live in monocultural country).
    - batista 14y ago
      >But is racist with with friends of other races really classical example of hypocrisy? I hadn't encountered it He probably means the classic "I'm not racist, I have black friends and all, but blacks in general do [this and that]". Which is often considered a classic example of hypocrisy but I don't think it is. In a lot of cases it's not even racism. E.g a guy could have Mexican friends (in the US or Mexico) but be against mexican illegal immigrants. This is often taken to mean he is racist, but in actuality he is against illegal immigration, not against a race in general (he might consider that low end jobs are numbered, or that wages in those jobs are getting lower due to increased competition from illegal immigrants, or that lots of hungry, unemployed opportunity seekers from Mexico could resort to crime to feed themselves etc).
- gizzlon 14y ago
  It's not. Saying that everyone should murder (all the time), and not doing it, would be hypocrisy. But yeah, you're right. People would probably be distracted by the whole "murder" thing. Even if there's no consensus on whether some beliefs are good or bad, such as in politics, doesn't hypocrisy show some sort of "character flaw" in the perpetrator? It's dishonest to push views you don't hold yourself, or rules you don't even try to live by.
  - ajuc 14y ago
    Yeah, my bad, your example is better. Regarding showing dishonesty - yes, but "supporters of X are dishonest" is "ad personam" - that's poor argument. Better to use hypocrisy to show "even supporters of X don't really believe their view is right, so it probably isn't".
    - batista 14y ago
      >Better to use hypocrisy to show "even supporters of X don't really believe their view is right, so it probably isn't". Still, not a good argument. Their view could be right, whether they do really believe it or not. E.g a politician could say "don't steal", and he could be stealing himself. That he is hypocritical about it, doesn't mean stealing is "probably" right.
no_more_death 14y ago
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but knowing what you're doing is really a black mark against you. Hypocrisy implies a blatantly willful action. It also obliterates your argument. It is arguing against your own case.
sbov 14y ago
Hypocrisy is the antithesis of the golden rule, which is why I tend to have a problem with it. It's not anything that automatically refutes someones arguments, it just tells me that when it comes to that subject, they're an asshole. And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.
- dasil003 14y ago
  The problem with hypocrisy in general is that when combined with the human propensity for pattern matching and abstract generalization, if you think hard enough everyone becomes a hypocrite.
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    Well, everyone is a hypocrite to a certain degree. It's the degree in which they're hypocritical which can be a problem.
- batista 14y ago
  >And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments. But that's too bad. Better to do what a hypocrite proposes if it's the right thing, than to ignore it because of what he does. Here's a nice article on the topic: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room? etc: http://imomus.livejournal.com/362894.html http://imomus.livejournal.com/362894.html
grhino 14y ago
The morality of an individual or organization is determined by: 1. What they do 2. What they say And in that order. For politicians and celebrities with a large audience, it's possible that what they say matters more than what they do for the global good. However, the actions an individual takes can wipe out a legacy of saying the right thing.

batista 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. Only those two are in totally unrelated fields, namely some railway clock and a mobile phone.

SteveJobless 14y ago
Does it matter if they are in unrelated fields ? And if Mondaine is selling hand watches with that design, and they, paid for the license, why shouldn't Apple pay too ? If my intellectual property is used in an "unrelated field" does it cease to be my intellectual property ?

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

I think it's interesting to note (as the article does), that Apple has attacked other parties for "paying homage" to the looks of the Apple clocks. I personally think these two clocks are different enough, but if I'm the owner of that Swiss trademark, you can bet I'm suing, before Apple comes after me for using their design!

roc 14y ago

The big distinction that seems to be getting missed is that Apple isn't selling wall clocks with this design. So they aren't remotely competing with the designs that they 'copy' from. Samsung is copying Apple, arguably intentionally, to create directly competing products. This is a very different thing.

SteveJobless 14y ago
Sure, nice workaround. But the swiss design is actually used on any watches. And because many people use their phones also as watches we can therefore declare that Apple is a competitor of Mondaine. And stealing is stealing, no matter what is the purpose, as far as I know. But what do I know right ? I'm not even an Apple fan.
vacri 14y ago
Nice reframing there. The Mondaine clockface isn't just used in wall clocks.
- roc 14y ago
  I'm not saying Apple is right. I'm saying the contexts are wildly different. They probably ought to cough up some sort of fee, or change if the designers don't want them to use it. But one face on one app of a multifunction device is simply not the same as aping a plurality of features and designs of a competing device.
ktizo 14y ago
Phones compete with watches though. Personally, I don't really care about people making knockoff Mondaine watches, I just find this funny and feel it is that peculiar form of justice that is generally known as "live by the sword, die by the sword". Is like cannibals being left to their own devices till they get bored and eat each other.
- phaus 14y ago
  I'd go so far as to say that phones compete with watches and physical clocks. I personally can't stand to wear a watch, and I almost always have an electronic device on my person. I don't even own a traditional clock anymore.

ahoyhere 14y ago

Do you not see a difference between a concerted effort to copy by multiple parties, with meetings and documents circulating which basically say "This is what we should copy," vs potentially one or two designers alone copying something which is not recognized as a trademark to anyone but an expert in European clock design? I'm both a Swiss Modern design nut and lover of clocks. I not only didn't recognize the clock as specifically Swiss, although it has that look, I had no idea it was a copyrighted design. Chances are very low that a manager at Apple would notice what I didn't.