Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#81

Post by mitchty »

Can someone more versed with the British legal system explain the logic behind this? Coming from the perspective of an American it is a bit peculiar, but then again our own legal system isn't always rational. Just curious if this is common for a defendent to have to publish notices of case outcomes. I know there are a number of other consumer protection laws in the UK.

That or pointing to something like popehat that has overall analysis would be nice too. Law stories tend to make me feel like I'm a fish out of water, especially when they are from other countries. Given that I know a contract lawyer and have finally gotten to a basic understanding of how some of that law works I have a bit more understanding of how common perception of the law differs from actual practice.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#82

Post by Samuel_Michon »

jkn wrote: post #39
briandear wrote: post #14

I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…

I think part of the reason why many people are rooting for Samsung here, is that in this community, in the field of competitive practices, copying is not frowned upon as much as litigating. There's no doubt that Samsung copied from Apple but blocking a whole product due to some parts being copied (like a green phone icon according to the page you linked) is arguably worse than the copying itself. After all, copying (…

“copying (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the creation process.”

The original quote, to put in context what Jobs was referring to:

“One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.” —Philip Massinger

http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/good-poets-borro...

NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#83

Post by CubicleNinjas »

guelo wrote: post #76
briandear wrote: post #14

I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…

Copying a design is not necessarily illegal or "dirty". The benefits to consumers and society of companies mimicking each other can be huge.

So this was an altruistic theft? I thought it was to steal money from confused consumers with an inferior product.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#84

Post by guelo »

CubicleNinjas wrote: post #83
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying a design is not necessarily illegal or "dirty". The benefits to consumers and society of companies mimicking each other can be huge.

So this was an altruistic theft? I thought it was to steal money from confused consumers with an inferior product.

I said nothing about altruism. Do you understand how it is that competition under capitalism benefits consumers while reducing corporations' profits?

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#85

Post by [deleted] »

CubicleNinjas wrote: post #83
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying a design is not necessarily illegal or "dirty". The benefits to consumers and society of companies mimicking each other can be huge.

So this was an altruistic theft? I thought it was to steal money from confused consumers with an inferior product.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#86

Post by jmduke »

ajross wrote: post #79
Terretta wrote: post #21

This is not a disjunctive syllogism. If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't do it. This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.

You have your requirements analysis all mixed up here. Legal logic isn't the same as mathematical logic. The goal isn't to "prove" a fact here, it's to "settle" the fact so that people can go on with their lives. The courts pick boolean logic as their basis. So yes, legally, it is proven that Samsung did not copy Apple, no matter how many fancy-pants math terms you throw at them.

I think you're both right?

Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

That being said, the sales injunctions that Samsung occured were a clear case of damages as result of a case for which Samsung was not found guilty; thus, its fair for Samsung to receive compensation.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#87

Post by recursive »

CubicleNinjas wrote: post #83
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying a design is not necessarily illegal or "dirty". The benefits to consumers and society of companies mimicking each other can be huge.

So this was an altruistic theft? I thought it was to steal money from confused consumers with an inferior product.

That's not what steal means.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#88

Post by goatforce5 »

tysonjennings wrote: post #35
goatforce5 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there a difference between waiting 30-40 years and using a no longer available product as a design reference for something, and waiting a couple of months and making an extremely similar product that directly competes with the source of your inspiration?

As far as prior art goes? Nope. How long did Apple wait for the LG Prada to be on the market before they aped its design? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_...

I'd like to see Braun try to form a cohesive argument as to how the iMac was damaging the sales of their boxy speaker on a stand.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#89

Post by jack-r-abbit »

jmduke wrote: post #86
ajross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your requirements analysis all mixed up here. Legal logic isn't the same as mathematical logic. The goal isn't to "prove" a fact here, it's to "settle" the fact so that people can go on with their lives. The courts pick boolean logic as their basis. So yes, legally, it is proven that Samsung did not copy Apple, no matter how many fancy-pants math terms you throw at them.

I think you're both right? Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'. That being said, the sales injunctions that Samsung occured were a clear case of damages as result of a case for which Samsung was not found guilty; thus, its fair for Samsung to receive compensation.

> Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

hmmm... if "innocent until proven guilty" holds true, then you remain innocent until you have been found guilty. If at the end of trial you have been found "not guilty" then you have not been found guilty, therefore are innocent.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#90

Post by pflats »

tysonjennings wrote: post #35
goatforce5 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there a difference between waiting 30-40 years and using a no longer available product as a design reference for something, and waiting a couple of months and making an extremely similar product that directly competes with the source of your inspiration?

As far as prior art goes? Nope. How long did Apple wait for the LG Prada to be on the market before they aped its design? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_...

It's looking like the iPad was prototyped out as a full-screen touchscreen ~4 years before the iPhone ever came out.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/earliest-known-ph...

So it is slightly possible that both companies came to the same conclusion independently. It has happened before.

Post reply on HN