Or maybe they cloned Visual Studio. Or Flash Builder. Or whatever. All of the IDEs with a design surface are largely the same.
Seriously- this is an IDE for televisions.
Seriously- this is an IDE for televisions.
edit: cmelbye in this thread has a good comparison: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4378379
But fair enough: let's say they cloned it. Now what? What corrective action should be taken? What if Eclipse did the same thing (as, of course, Eclipse basically did to VC++)?
You're trying to make some kind of moral point, so it would help your case if you spelled it out.
I'll spell out my position: cloning a UI is fine. There is a long history of this in the technology industry, and we're all richer for it. Condemning someone for cloning your favorite candy maker's recipe is nothing but base fanboism, and hurtful to all of us.
Oh, Interface Builder 1986.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Builder
But I'll bite: I do not think cloning a UI is fine. I think drawing inspiration from a UI is fine, because indeed, any new thing stands on the shoulders of what came before it. But actually cloning a UI (your words, cited) is making a clone, a copy, whose result is certainly not evolution or innovation. You're making a facsimile, doing no real creative work (or innovative work) to cut corners.
To me, this is less about it being Samsung and Apple, but about cutting corners in a blatant way. It's dumb, it's misguided, and these guys should know better. Just as you shouldn't ever say that cloning a UI is fine.
Actually, I don't know why this court nonsense is still making the news.
And the court nonsense is still news because the case isn't over yet and this is demonstrating a pattern of copying by Samsung.
QT Designer: http://www.cppblog.com/images/cppblog_com/lai3d/qt-designer.... Samsung: http://i50.tinypic.com/suu26w.jpg
I still think there's too much attention being given to this trial by tech people. Much more than it deserves.