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

251–260 of 260 posts

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#251

Post by rooshdi »

dasil003 wrote: post #144
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.

The problem with hypocrisy in general is that when combined with the human propensity for pattern matching and abstract generalization, if you think hard enough everyone becomes a hypocrite.

Well, everyone is a hypocrite to a certain degree. It's the degree in which they're hypocritical which can be a problem.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#252

Post by Renaud »

chmars wrote: post #185

Is the Swiss railway clock a protected trademark at all? Judging from the Swiss trademark registry, the protection as a trademark ended a few days ago on September 3, 2012: https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/de/tm/512830 In addition, the trademark is only protected for class 14 as clocks and its parts but not for other classes and in particular not for software.

That's the most useful comment of this whole discussion, and I'm sorry it's buried so deep.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#253

Post by illicium »

anthonyb wrote: post #43
zdw wrote: post #4

They also copied the look of Braun's classic calculator and tape deck designs for their calculator and podcasts apps. Is this particular instance copying? Yes. Will it affect the popularity of said designs in a positive manner? Probably. Will they sell more of their $400 clock (see: http://www.momastore.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDi... ) as a result? I'd guess at yes. So, in any case, they sell more clocks,…

er, the $400 clock is a foot-and-a-half across. You probably want the more reasonably priced normal clock: http://www.momastore.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDi...

$200 is not very reasonably priced

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#257

Post by abcd_f »

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…

Apple's diluting and commoditizing SBB'a brand. It's not about iPhone being confused with Swiss train station clocks. It's about Swiss train station clocks being confused with iPhone's clock app.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#258

Post by ahoyhere »

varunsrin wrote: post #75
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…

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.

Do you not see a difference between a concerted effort to copy by multiple parties, with meetings and documents circulating which basically say "This is what we should copy," vs potentially one or two designers alone copying something which is not recognized as a trademark to anyone but an expert in European clock design?

I'm both a Swiss Modern design nut and lover of clocks. I not only didn't recognize the clock as specifically Swiss, although it has that look, I had no idea it was a copyrighted design.

Chances are very low that a manager at Apple would notice what I didn't.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#259

Post by anthonyb »

illicium wrote: post #253
anthonyb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

er, the $400 clock is a foot-and-a-half across. You probably want the more reasonably priced normal clock: http://www.momastore.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDi...

$200 is not very reasonably priced

Still better than $400

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#260

Post by jopt »

Blara wrote: post #135
jopt wrote: post #123

It's a ripoff, and strange that Apple didn't license the design, assuming they did their homework and find the IP belonged to someone. It's not going to confuse anyone. Zero iPads will be returned because the customers thought this was the famous Swiss wall clock they'd heard so much about. So it doesn't have much to do with Apple v. Samsung. Let's not try so hard to make everything about that; high-resolution thinki…

are there any numbers on how many people have returned their samsung/iPhone because they thought it was the other one? I've heard this argument time and time again but have yet to see any numbers on it.

Late reply, sorry. There's some among the data provided to the court. IIRC Apple submitted an internal report done by Samsung, which indicated Galaxy Tabs are often returned because users thought they were buying iPads.
Post reply on HN