Speaking as an Apple hater: so what? Apple should be allowed to use said design, as should anybody.
Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
71–80 of 260 posts
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#72There is a difference here (although I admit I'm experiencing some lovely schadenfreude glow over here). Samsung built camouflaged products that were designed to confuse buyers into thinking they were buying an iPad. Here, Apple has ripped off an iconic design, but there's little doubt that what they are selling is still an iPhone and not a Swiss watch. Still, trade dress (and accusations of douchebaggery) still appl…
you make an accusation that I have seen no evidence of in the press. Are you possessed of information demonstrating intent on Samsung's part to confuse buyers?
Isn't that what dilution of trade dress is?
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, actually NYC (well, NY State Dept. of Economic Development) constantly goes after people for infringement of the "I heart NY" logo. They definitely do follow through. It's not about money being made, it's a legal necessity that a trademark owner needs to actively defend the mark in order to keep it.
Right, of course. I meant you could have a "J' (heart) Bruxelles" in the same design and not get sued, so long as Brussells hadn't had that TMed. At least I'd hope not.
You could probably expect to get a C&D letter from NY State for designing a logo like that. At least, plenty of other people have. Google for "i heart nyc trademark infringement" and read the top few links. Apparently they have sent out over 3000 such requests since registering the mark.
Sometimes the claims of infringement are upheld, sometimes not. The more important thing, legally, is that NY needs to show that they are actively defending the mark to prevent trademark dilution.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#74No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.
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 tim…
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?)
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#75No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.
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 tim…
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.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#76Let's hope a court gets them screwed with their own medicine.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#77No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.
I can't downvote you. But I think that this is a prime example of the snarky comments that people are complaining about that are hurting HN's comment quality.
I also can't downvote you, but the comment you refer is apprpriate, correctly written and to the point. The problem is that you don't like the content. That is not what voting is for.
On the other hand, your comment (and this one of mine) are pure meta-comments complaining without content.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
One man's snarky comment is another man's sarcastic wit.
Only when the comment is indeed intended to be a sarcasm. If you want to mark the comment sarcasm you have plenty of methods, e.g. .
For years and years writers have been able to employ sarcasm and dark wit without resorting to blatant labels tipping off the reader, "Joke ahead!"
Why now is this linguistic bludgeon required?
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#79No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.
+1 great sarcasm. Apple is allowed to 'borrow' good ideas but not other companies.
In Steve's words, this is a great "steal".
They probably thought the clock company should feel honored about it. I would like to see their faces now.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tim…
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 n…
> 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?