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

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Post by jasomill »

hahainternet wrote: post #122
vacri wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fullscreen smartphone was a new category of theirs, wasn't it? The cynic in me would also say that mp3 players that don't have a radio were probably also pioneered by them :)

Not really. I still have one of these lying around somewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_TyTN There were many other options, and as usual Apple simplified and minimised.

As importantly, they retargeted the marketing. The iPhone was introduced as an entertainment and Web device. Prior to this, all the major players (Microsoft, BlackBerry, and Palm, as well as carriers) pretty much worked under the assumption that "consumers" weren't willing to pay for "premium" phones, so smartphones before the iPhone were designed for and marketed to "mobile professionals" with features like personal organizers and push email. At the same time, "premium" $250+ iPods were flying off the shelves.

But competing music players at similar price points were not, so I'd still tend to give more credit to Apple's execution than its "vision".

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

#132

Post by sjwright »

tysonjennings wrote: post #99
Jtsummers wrote: post #92

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…

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.

The fact that you care so much proves you're a troll.

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

#133

Post by Jacqued »

sjwright wrote: post #74
jkn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

Jobs would say copying. Stealing is reserved for those who recognise the artistry behind the idea and integrating it into the very soul of the new work; copying is the duplication of an idea without more than superficial regard for its true meaning or purpose.

I don't think a business leader, no matter how charismatic, is the most well suited person to talk about copying, since his business probably holds a lot of patents, which may or may be justified. In this case, the level of absurdity we reached is quite astonishing - the judge pretty much said : yes, Apple owns the black rectangle, but Samsung failed to do a proper black rectangle so they are not infringing.

By any means, this obsessive scorn of copying is something that must be relativised : it only really exists in the western world after the 18th century. Most cultures that exist in other times/spaces tend to see no moral issue in copying, and even dignify it when done properly

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

#134

Post by neya »

Bro_Merch wrote: post #118
neya wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent. Right now, you aren't guilty...so that means...ummm...

It's not 'not guilty' it's 'not /found/ guilty'. Maybe I /am/ guilty. (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 la…

>Show me a non Apple laptop...blah blah blah

I have a Sony Vaio VGN FZ-21S. Its almost three and a half years old. When I bought it, it was the price of a Mac book pro. It had more performance, speed, features than a Mac book pro back then, including a Blu-Ray drive. It has survived huge amounts of mis-handling. I've dropped it into places where no one would even imagine - Sea (saline water), Rain water puddles, etc. and it still works fine.

I'm a film maker. I use it for heavy rendering, sometimes it is turned on without even a restart for several weeks or even months. It came with a defective GPU chipset and the entire motherboard was replaced free of cost even after its warranty period.

My friend has an Apple Mac book pro. I borrowed it once to do some comparisons. I will put up a blog post on this soon, but here's what you need to know:

1) ALL 2011 Apple Mac's have a shitty display contrast, compared to what this particular Sony Vaio gives you. The color and the contrast is beautiful on a Sony. Period. FYI - I'm a graphic/Web designer too, and this is really important for my work.

2) Apple charges you for anything that is not under warranty. But in my case (and millions of other Sony owners') Sony didn't charge us a single penny.

3) I compose music too. My Sony has an inbuilt ASIO chipset. The sound quality from this chipset is nothing like what you've heard before (assuming you've owned only Apple products). Its amazing. I compared it with the MB pro. Shit it was. Just like their iPods (If you argue the iPod has a better sound quality, then please stop reading right here. I don't want to argue with you anymore)

4) The MB pro heats like hell. I can't render something for more than 6-7 hours. BS. I might as well use it to fry an omlet.

Its ok to like Apple and its not my problem if you like Apple or not. But don't manipulate facts to suit your argument.

Because, this statement:

>Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

is not accurate, heavily manipulated and is utter bullshit. It clearly indicates how biased you are and how ignorant you are about the pace at which the rest of the non-apple gadgets improve, day-by-day, which is atleast thrice as fast as how Apple's gadgets improve.

To answer your original question - >Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

Please check out the Laptop sections of Sony, Toshiba, Dell, Asus, Fujitsu, Lenovo and HP from their corresponding websites.

Have a nice day.

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

#135

Post by ralfn »

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.

The UK has slander laws. Apple claimed that Samsung copied their design. Not just in a private trial, but in public.

You cant actually do that in the Uk, unless you can prove it. They could not, according to the judge, hence its slander.

The default assumption is innocent until proven guilty. If i call you a murderer, but i can not prove it, Uk laws would force me to make statement that you are not a murderer.

Again, you dont have to prove that you are not. I had to prove you were, before i opened my mouth.

These laws sound really cool though, and they are good for these kind of situations. But in general those laws often end up just limiting free speech of people with less legal funds.

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

#136

Post by ralfn »

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #98
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #89

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…

You should not be able to sue somebody over and over again.

Yes, someone who isnt guilthy isnt always innocent. But in this case the judge considered it poven that the designs were not (legally) stolen.

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

#137

Post by ralfn »

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.

Confused consumers? Seriously, what kind of drugs are these Apple fanboys taking. I want some of them?

Talk about a reality distortion field.

You ever met someone with a galaxy tab, and hear thm claiming they have an Apple iPad?

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

#138

Post by lmm »

286c8cb04bda wrote: post #19
robgough wrote: post #10

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.

He didn't "use the phrase wrong"; he communicated his meaning effectively. Dictionaries (of English; there is no acadamie anglaise) consist of observations, not rulings; if a dictionary disagrees with usage, it is the dictionary that is wrong.

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

#139

Post by Terretta »

ralfn wrote: post #135
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.

The UK has slander laws. Apple claimed that Samsung copied their design. Not just in a private trial, but in public. You cant actually do that in the Uk, unless you can prove it. They could not, according to the judge, hence its slander. The default assumption is innocent until proven guilty. If i call you a murderer, but i can not prove it, Uk laws would force me to make statement that you are not a murderer. Again,…

> You cant actually do that in the Uk, unless you can prove it. They could not, according to the judge, hence its slander.

On the contrary, I understand Samsung requested that Apple be barred from making public statements claiming that the Galaxy Tab had infringed upon the iPad design, but the judge specifically ruled that Apple is within its rights to make such claims in line with the company's belief that the ruling is incorrect.

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

#140

Post by briandear »

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 (…

Which is why Samsung was so stupid to have copied anything. They didn't need to.
Post reply on HN