Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

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 little research before just blindly assuming Apple did something wrong. Looking at the side-by-side images here: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga... should erase any doubt that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple.

View on HN

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 (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the creation process. Sure, Samsung was not very creative in the pieces they took from Apple, but in the end these elements are a small part of the product.

“copying (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the creation process.”

The original quote, to put in context what Jobs was referring to:

“One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.” —Philip Massinger

http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/good-poets-borro...

NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot.

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

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

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?

"A couple of months"? You've clearly never worked with hardware engineers before.

As far as prior art goes? Nope. How long did Apple wait for the LG Prada to be on the market before they aped its design? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_...

It's looking like the iPad was prototyped out as a full-screen touchscreen ~4 years before the iPhone ever came out.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/earliest-known-ph...

So it is slightly possible that both companies came to the same conclusion independently. It has happened before.

I'd like to see Braun try to form a cohesive argument as to how the iMac was damaging the sales of their boxy speaker on a stand.

Bzzzt, iPhone was demo'd publicly before LG Prada.

The LG Prada was presented for the iF Design Award in September 2006, and won. See http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable...

Edit: not sure which phone was first on the market though.

And iPhone was in the works for 2.5 years before being revealed in public. Or maybe they just did everything betwwen Sep 2006 and January 2007?

The argument is intentionally silly to point out how it's a silly argument in the other direction as well.

Nothing gets designed in a vacuum. If you google around a bit you can find flatscreen tv's from 2002 that look like big ipads, well before apple started designing their tablets. Watt didn't invent the steam engine, he just had a really good idea how someone else's steam engine could be improved while repairing it. Bosch didn't invent electric ignition for cars, he just transplanted the idea from Volta's glass pistol, whose spark in turn was delivered by Volta's "pile" (battery), the idea of which was inspired by Volta's friend who noticed that when he dissected frogs sometimes the frog's legs would jump right off the plate by the generated currents from the scalpel interacting with the metal base. The iphone and ipad are brilliantly executed, but to pretend that they were invented in a vacuum does a disservice to designers and inventors everywhere.

But just as Apple are being silly by pretending they design in a vacuum, Samsung are silly for pretending they didn't rip off the iphone. I think they would have sold more phones if they hadn't actually (I know for me it was a reason not to get a samsung phone, even though I eventually did.) I think the silliness on both sides is why the courts are starting to hand down these silly rulings.

So you think the LG Prada was designed and produced in a weekend?

You specifically claimed Apple aped it's design, soemthing anything with a brain would find laughable. Please keep making these ridiculous declarations.

I don't care if Apple directly aped the LG Prada or not but do not come in here thinking you can fool people into believing that Apple just innovated the modern smartphone out of thin air. It didn't happen. The fact that similar looking phones to the iPhone hit the market first should give you a clue to that.

"do not come in here thinking you can fool people into believing that Apple just innovated the modern smartphone out of thin air."

No one has said anything like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why lie, man? Just to "prove" some point? The iPhone was first demoed by Steve Jobs in January of 2007, the LG Prada was demoed in December of 2006.

One photo is not a demo. LG Prada first publicly unveiled Jan 18, 2007.

http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rum...

Why call someone a liar man, just to prove some point?

"One photo is not a demo."

So, now we are just degenerating to ye olde "No True Scotsman" defense. Face it, dude. Apple imitated and you fell for it. You've been told now crawl away with some dignity.

Hacker News commentary is turning into something I don't much care to read. (Including my own contribution here, ironcally.)

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-Apple stance.

The ease of seeing a users comment history makes finding trolls so much faster. Now I just need a killfile...

Thanks for pointing out that first comment. It is a new low for any I've seen on HN thus far.

It warms my heart to see a thriving groupthink osmotically reproduce and grow.

Because warmed-over bro-backslapping Sailerisms sure don't stink of herd mentality, right? Aren't you late for your mutual-reinforcement MRA support meeting?

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.

"January of 2007, the LG Prada was demoed in December of 2006." Yes, tysonjennings, this is correct.

Although, I hope you don't actually believe this is evidence that Apple "aped" the Prada.

Thanks for linking the disingenuous comparisons between the two phones.

Oh btw, Apple "rips off" just as much as anyone -- they just have better PR.

Apple was not the first to produce a round-cornered rectangle

This is a zombie argument that never dies, can we just down vote these into oblivion before this place turns completely into Engadget?

Apple didn't have a patent on round cornered rectangles.

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=drawing#v=o...

Yes, they effectively did. That design patent is what they've been using in force.

That should not be patentable. Now it's patent infringement to make a battery of that shape.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn...

Rounded corners is just one element, full stop.

Your commentary is factious. No matter how you enunciate ponctuation to try and establish reason. That simply makes it look desperately void. And stop asking other users to downvote people you don't agree with, that is just silly.

What are the other elements? That it's dominated by a screen? We know it isn't thickness or aspect ratio, or logos on the back, or home screen appearance.

The patent in question is literally a rounded corner rectangle.

AFAIK the use of cover glass instead of a raised plastic bezel was actually innovative.

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

Google 'hp tc1100'

> I don't understand ...

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.

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.

I said nothing about altruism. Do you understand how it is that competition under capitalism benefits consumers while reducing corporations' profits?

No one is confused. It says 'Samsung Galaxy Tab', right on the box, along with a Samsung logo on the tablet. The only way it could be confusing is with a salesperson using phrases such as 'basically the same', which could lead people to purchasing the wrong one.

It's not like the Chinese iPad clones which come with the same box design, the same style logo and a big apple on the back of them, it's Samsung selling a product, which out of necessity, has similar design features.

That's not what steal means.

In a world where everything ill-gotten is 'stolen' we end up with this:

  steal money from confused consumers

If a con-artist convinces you to give him/her your money in return for something that is a lie, it's called fraud.

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.

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?

I don't understand how anyone can root for anyone. We lose either way. Think about it before you go ahead with your down vote.

Maybe Samsung is a dirty company but in this instance they were in the right. I've used the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. The Galaxy Tab certainly takes its inspiration from the iPad, but come on, so does everyone else! And there's only so many way you can design a rectangular slab of plastic and glass.

At least 50, by my reckoning. I'm thinking of doors, televisions, cups, windows, chairs, eyeglasses, automobiles, all sorts of things with coy simplistic descriptions that exist in innumerable variety of physical appearance.

None of those things (with the arguable exception of eyeglasses) have practical benefits from being as small and light as possible while doing their job, so it isn't the same.

But surely there are other design considerations and constraints that bind objects within these classes together.

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?

Allow me to propose an alternative argument to those I've seen thus far: Apple is regarded by hackers with disfavor because they compete in ways that are incompatible with the hacker essence.

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.

Perhaps it would be better to say that Apple is competing and suing instead of only competing.

> I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything.

Maybe people want an iPhone sans all the DRM crap and Apple's censorship.

People cheer for Samsung because they like the design that Apple championed but they want it from a company other than Apple. And I see nothing wrong with that kind of cheering/rooting.

Besides, being inspired by how the end-product should look like should hardly be considered "stealing" in technological terms. Unless Samsung really engaged in corporate espionage and stole engineering/manufacturing insights and ideas from Apple, I wouldn't be liberally throwing around the term "rip off". If Samsung products suck internally and/or have sloppy build quality, then the market should punish them. Bringing in courts is just a short-cut.

Lots of people "cheer for Samsung" because of the abject horror of watching a company try to shut down competition like this based on near-nonsense intellectual properties. We look at Apple's behavior and picture our products in the firing line.

Frankly I don't care much at all about Samsung. But I'm glad as hell they won.

My sentiments exactly and I don't plan to invest in Samsung's ecosystem either...

And Apple just dreamed up the idea of a smartphone out of thin air? What about the touch screen? Multi-touch? Gridded icons? Rectangles? Apple is an imitator, a marketer, and a polisher of other people's ideas. Little more. Your blind worship is shamefully ignorant.

Exhibit a) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_...

This preceded the first iPhone.

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 iPhone, Apple's lawyers wouldn't have trouble saying which phone is made by their company.

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 Apple I out of a block of wood and a circuit board 40 years ago.

"Apple has never produced a new product category."

"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. "

Please cite where I claimed they did? Straw man much?

I'm just pointing out the difference between Samsung and Apple to you. They aren't the same. Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung aims for as little differentiation from the market leading designs as possible. It's true with refrigerators, washers, tablets, phones, etc. That's why the comment you were originally responding to disparaged Samsung.

You drew a false equivalence between completely copying a product and making a smartphone that's very different from other smartphones but apparently is just as bad because it wasn't the very first smartphone Moses brought back down the mountain. Laughable.

So your argument is that Samsung is imitating an imitator. Excuse me while I don't care.

Just put whatever words in my mouth that make you feel comfortable.

> 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.

Right -- or like we always say here on HN, it's not ideas that count, it's execution.

I never said they didn't execute. Nice strawman though.

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".

iPhone - Announced, demoed on stage on January 9, 2007. Went on sale June 2007.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

" It was first announced on December 12, 2006 .[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] "

I wouldn't claim it "preceded"

Right, because the iPhone was invented and built from the ground up between january and june 2007.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com