111–120 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot...
I'm not sure that proves anything; the CrunchPad appears to be derivative of the iPhone which had been out for a year at that point. I consider scaling up the iPhone design to a larger size to be obvious. For clarity: 2004: Apple files patent on iPad-like design 2007: iPhone released 2008: CrunchPad development started
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Thanks for pointing out that first comment. It is a new low for any I've seen on HN thus far.
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…
Start with your assumption that drawing on something you saw to make something better of your own is inherently wrong. Many people just don't share this assumption of yours. In fact, if many people did, Hacker News and ycombinator would be a very empty and lonely place - just look at all the startups: 99% are "some existing idea where we have made a small and novel tweak that makes it better" - PG even openly encourages startups to pitch their ideas that way (we've made X for Y). The top link right now is gist.io and the entire page explaining it is about how similar it is to a bunch of other services but they've made it slightly better for one special case. And the comments there are all favorable, nobody is shaming them for ripping off somebody else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard that some areas have three-state legal systems, at least for certain types of cases, but that's not the case here. The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Not "Apple has not proven that Samsung infringed." You don't have to agree with the ruling, but the legal ruling was a "false," not a "null." A "not guilty" verdict may arise…
> The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Essentially, that Samsung didn't copy them well . As I understand it, the judge also refused to stop Apple from saying Samsung did copy them, saying Apple was entitled to its opinion. Since the actual ruling is that Apple should note that Samsung's tablet doesn't legally infringe on Apple's register…
> the judge also refused to stop Apple from saying
> Samsung did copy them, saying Apple was entitled to
> its opinion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
steal money from confused consumers
If a con-artist gets close to you to learn the combination to your bank vault, and then absconds with your cash, it's called stealing.
Sometimes it seems like we're watching the language as it spirals towards Newspeak.
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…
The cynic in me would also say that mp3 players that don't have a radio were probably also pioneered by them :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
(Just making a point. I am getting a kick out of reading this thread. I own >15 apple devices and every one of them has duct tape over the apple logo because I think their legal b.s. is just that. B.S. In 2000 I was cool for being the Apple guy. Now I'm ashamed of it. I just honestly still believe they make superior products. Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro all the way down to the even weight distribution, that I can install Linux Mint on and have it Just Work an ill buy it tonight.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to read this article. http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secr...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What apple did wrong was suing instead of competing.
How is Apples selling several times as many tablets at a much higher profit margin not competing?
First, hackers value independence and the freedom of creation above most else. Apple's use of the legal system amounts to denying the right of others to create, due to arguably trivial similarities with Apple's own derivative creations.
Second (and this is the new point I want to raise), Apple's marketing centers on creating a "magical" ethos around their products. Hackers, as die-hard rationalists, regard appeals to magical thinking as manipulative and morally reprehensible. Thus, even when Apple isn't litigating, they're still "cheating" by using something other than pure reason to win.