Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 260 posts

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#201

Post by vadman »

omgsean wrote: post #186
blktiger wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that a lot of people on HN are assuming that this design is an intentional rip-off. It's entirely possible that whoever did the icon didn't realize that they had seen a clock like that before and thus didn't realize they might infringe on someone else's trademark.

That's really unlikely. Those clocks are famous, especially among the types of people who would be in charge of designing a clock at Apple.

Indeed. I don't know much about the designer subculture, but there are a bunch of "iconic" industrial designs that they (should) know about. Another famous one is the IBM wall clock: http://vimeo.com/40953003 (one of the Windows clock gadgets is obviously inspired by it).

(Disclaimer: I am not an Apple fan.) As for the design itself, there is the blatant copying of the seconds hand, but otherwise it seems whoever did it took some care to differentiate the apple clock from the original. E.g. how the lengths of the hour and minute hands relate to the radius of the clock and the size of the hour and minute tick marks. Then of course there are obvious implications of being viewed on a tiny 4" screen. Whether that is enough to build a legal defense on, I have no idea.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#202

Post by vacri »

roc wrote: post #191
varunsrin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big distinction that seems to be getting missed is that Apple isn't selling wall clocks with this design. So they aren't remotely competing with the designs that they 'copy' from. Samsung is copying Apple, arguably intentionally, to create directly competing products. This is a very different thing.

Nice reframing there. The Mondaine clockface isn't just used in wall clocks.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#203

Post by [deleted] »

cstuder wrote: post #163
Cushman wrote: post #65

Earlier 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…

I'm not sure the SBB will sue Apple. Their relationship is a little bit more complex than mere two unrelated companies: Some context: The iPhone has a huge penetration rate in Switzerland (2.9 million devices sold for a population of 8 million people). Switzerland also has very good public transportation, held together by the train system of the SBB. And therefore, almost every iPhone user has the SBB Mobile App inst…

[deleted]

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#204

Post by vacri »

batista wrote: post #156
sbov wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your example is a pretty artificial one when considering hypocrisy in the real world. Sure, it could theoretically happen, but it's not a particularly common situation when talking about hypocrisy.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#205

Post by vacri »

batista wrote: post #174
Permit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the end result could have been avoided had the "visionary" simply not been hypocritical and avoided doing "a bad thing".

Yes, and it also could have been avoided if everybody paid more attention to what is beneficial for them (i.e what the visionary said) than to what the visionary does or does not. You just gave a perfect example of the narrow minded logic explained in the article, that cares not what is good for them to do, but if the guy that advocates it is "consistent". Not to mention the other three paragraphs I quoted, that expl…

It's not hypocrisy if you try to live up to your ideals and fail. It's hypocrisy when you tell others to live up to your ideals, but you don't bother yourself.

Also, you're assuming that a charge of hypocrisy automatically means the idea is voided. It's not - a charge of hypocrisy is an accusation of a serious character flaw.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#206

Post by culturestate »

codeka wrote: post #57
ender7 wrote: post #55

There 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…

Given that all of Samsung's phones have the word "Samsung" stamped on them in fairly large letters, I don't think they were doing anything to intentionally confuse buyers. Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.

> Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.

Well, if they weren't intending to do it, then it was quite a happy accident. http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu...

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#207

Post by SODaniel »

Tichy wrote: post #96

Well before Apple adapted it, it was used only by a very tiny fraction of the worlds population. Apple made it a mass market success. Therefore I think it is fair to say that Apple actually invented the design. The Swiss tried but failed to make it popular. Apple did it right .

And I would love to see anyone defend that position in court. "Your honor, it was patented but was it a 'real patent?', I mean look at the offices of the company that owns it. It's a small company, not very famous and their coffee tastes bland"..

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#208

Post by vacri »

batista wrote: post #153
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

No, 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 classi…

3) The design is famous. It's not like Apple sneakily copied it thinking no one will notice.

So why didn't they license it?

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#209

Post by SODaniel »

dmix wrote: post #3

> In 2009, Apple sent a letter of rejection to popular app developer Tapbots -- the makers of Tweetbot and other iOS apps -- saying the clock icon the company used in its pocket converter application looked too much like the icon used in Apple's own telephone app. Yes the appropriate response to Apple's ridiculous actions is to act in the same manor. /s Rather than pointing out hypocrisy, how about pointing out how E…

And if Apple wanted to claim any part of that as true they should have thought twice before they started suing companies on design patents.

Made bed, meet company laying in you.

Post reply on HN