"Good artists borrow; great artists steal."
So Samsung are even better artists than Apple?
Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
151–160 of 260 posts
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#152Speaking as an Apple hater: so what? Apple should be allowed to use said design, as should anybody.
Why should they be allowed to use it? Apple's clock obviously dilute the value of the trademark owned by SBB. If this is not a trademark violation then what is?
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#153No, 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.
Misguided sarcasm. It is indeed a homage.
1) Apple didn't copy the design to make it's own clock rip-off. It is for a very tiny part of their original product.
2) Apple didn't copy the design to sell more iPhones.
3) The design is famous. It's not like Apple sneakily copied it thinking no one will notice.
4) It's a common "click of the eye" gesture to design-savvy public, like their basing their podcast app to classic 60's design, etc.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#154Earlier 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…
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.
>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.
Only those two are in totally unrelated fields, namely some railway clock and a mobile phone.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#155No, 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…
So people here are trying to compare this with Apple vs Samsung, but that's apples to oranges.
SBB does not claim copyright or a design patent (although to increase their chances they might claim that too). Instead SBB claims that the clock design is their trademark.
This would be similar to Samsung putting the famous bitten apple on Galaxy phones.
And the problem with trademarks is that if you don't defend it, you lose it. It's not like with patents or copyrights were you can ignore infringement or selectively sue companies, depending on how much money you can milk.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a digression, but I have trouble with the idea of hypocrisy in general. It's difficult for me to conceive that, morally, espousing wrong beliefs and adhering to them in one's personal life is better than espousing wrong beliefs while at least doing the right thing oneself. (Assuming the people who made these decisions have any interaction with each other:) If intellectual property is well grounded, Apple is r…
Hypocrisy is the antithesis of the golden rule, which is why I tend to have a problem with it. It's not anything that automatically refutes someones arguments, it just tells me that when it comes to that subject, they're an asshole. And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.
>And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.
But that's too bad. Better to do what a hypocrite proposes if it's the right thing, than to ignore it because of what he does.
Here's a nice article on the topic:
There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers!
We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change!
There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again.
But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#157No, 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…
> cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products
Here in Switzerland you see clocks like these in pretty much every train station. I wouldn't call it exactly a "defunct" product. Mondaine sells this same design in a variety of products: just do a google image search and you will see some of those.
...and it's not that SBB is suing apple over the concept of a "numberless clock face with highly contrasting colors". They just look exactly the same. And when that's the case, I guess there's not much one can say.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When I read your comment I agreed. After reading the many comments down-thread which missed rather obvious sarcasm, I reluctantly disagree.
Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#159Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design
#160Holy shit, design nerds, apple fans/bashers, and clock enthusiasts all up in arms in one thread!
Personally, this walking stereotype wishes that the cnet article had been typeset in Comic Sans so that the typeophiles could get outraged too.