Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LG Prada was presented for the iF Design Award in September 2006, and won. See http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable... Edit: not sure which phone was first on the market though.

And iPhone was in the works for 2.5 years before being revealed in public. Or maybe they just did everything betwwen Sep 2006 and January 2007?

The argument is intentionally silly to point out how it's a silly argument in the other direction as well.

Nothing gets designed in a vacuum. If you google around a bit you can find flatscreen tv's from 2002 that look like big ipads, well before apple started designing their tablets. Watt didn't invent the steam engine, he just had a really good idea how someone else's steam engine could be improved while repairing it. Bosch didn't invent electric ignition for cars, he just transplanted the idea from Volta's glass pistol, whose spark in turn was delivered by Volta's "pile" (battery), the idea of which was inspired by Volta's friend who noticed that when he dissected frogs sometimes the frog's legs would jump right off the plate by the generated currents from the scalpel interacting with the metal base. The iphone and ipad are brilliantly executed, but to pretend that they were invented in a vacuum does a disservice to designers and inventors everywhere.

But just as Apple are being silly by pretending they design in a vacuum, Samsung are silly for pretending they didn't rip off the iphone. I think they would have sold more phones if they hadn't actually (I know for me it was a reason not to get a samsung phone, even though I eventually did.) I think the silliness on both sides is why the courts are starting to hand down these silly rulings.

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

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One photo is not a demo." So, now we are just degenerating to ye olde "No True Scotsman" defense. Face it, dude. Apple imitated and you fell for it. You've been told now crawl away with some dignity.

Hacker News commentary is turning into something I don't much care to read. (Including my own contribution here, ironcally.)

I'm not sure it's really turning into something terrible, we've just got some trolls running around this week. See tysonjennings remarkably racist, entirely undefended (and indefensible) post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262432

Or his post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182402) where he rails against someone's anti-Google stance, while later taking on a similar (and perhaps more harsh) anti-Apple stance.

The ease of seeing a users comment history makes finding trolls so much faster. Now I just need a killfile...

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

#93
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See here's the fundamental difference: Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung intentionally copies closely. No one serious would argue either of those points. That is why Samsung is the defendant in all these design cases and Apple has never had this problem no matter how many times Engadget ditto heads want to bring up Steve Jobs "great artists steal" quote. When the judge holds up an LG Prada and an i…

Bald assertions do not a non "Engadget dittohead" argument make. Apple has never produced a new product category. They take the innovations that came before and throw money and Steve Jobs/Jonny Ives taste at it. You are blind if you think that what Apple does is real innovation in the sense of what the actual producers of the cellphone did. Or the tablet for that matter. They haven't had a fresh idea since Woz built…

> Apple has never produced a new product category. They take the innovations that came before and throw money and Steve Jobs/Jonny Ives taste at it.

Right -- or like we always say here on HN, it's not ideas that count, it's execution.

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

#94
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You specifically claimed Apple aped it's design, soemthing anything with a brain would find laughable. Please keep making these ridiculous declarations.

I don't care if Apple directly aped the LG Prada or not but do not come in here thinking you can fool people into believing that Apple just innovated the modern smartphone out of thin air. It didn't happen. The fact that similar looking phones to the iPhone hit the market first should give you a clue to that.

"do not come in here thinking you can fool people into believing that Apple just innovated the modern smartphone out of thin air."

No one has said anything like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

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

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you took such offence at me using "cruel and unusual" as a turn of phrase, rather than to mean it's dictionary definition. I'll admit I'll happily use it in conversation - but perhaps I should have been more careful online where things are taken somewhat more literally. I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though.

> I'm sorry you took such offence... You're sorry he took offence? That's a pretty passive-aggressive apology isn't it? You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you. I don't think you're allowed to claim any high ground here. > I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though. That's supposed to be the whole point, I think.

> You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you.

wow, really? that phrase is used all the time in a lax, colloquial manner, he didn't 'use it wrong' at all.

why is everyone jumping to wikipedia over this? nothing better to do today?

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

#96

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.

If you change "If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them" to "If Samsung could prove that they did not copy Apple," all is right again (in terms of logic, anyway).

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

#97
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People cheer for Samsung because they like the design that Apple championed but they want it from a company other than Apple. And I see nothing wrong with that kind of cheering/rooting. Besides, being inspired by how the end-product should look like should hardly be considered "stealing" in technological terms. Unless Samsung really engaged in corporate espionage and stole engineering/manufacturing insights and ideas…

Lots of people "cheer for Samsung" because of the abject horror of watching a company try to shut down competition like this based on near-nonsense intellectual properties. We look at Apple's behavior and picture our products in the firing line. Frankly I don't care much at all about Samsung. But I'm glad as hell they won.

My sentiments exactly and I don't plan to invest in Samsung's ecosystem either...

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

#98
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it).

So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved. Thus, further testing can continue.

In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

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

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News commentary is turning into something I don't much care to read. (Including my own contribution here, ironcally.)

I'm not sure it's really turning into something terrible, we've just got some trolls running around this week. See tysonjennings remarkably racist, entirely undefended (and indefensible) post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262432 Or his post ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182402 ) where he rails against someone's anti-Google stance, while later taking on a similar (and perhaps more harsh) anti-App…

You disagree with my statements now you're my own personal stalker? Resorting to some kind of mob mentality group think to rally support when rhetorical skills fail you is...weak. I can't help but notice that at least at this moment this is your only comment on this story so you don't even care about the subject at hand you just wanted to get a jibe in against me. You don't need a "killfile", you need help.

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

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it). So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved . Thus…

>In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

Right now, you aren't guilty...so that means...ummm...

Post reply on HN