Slashdot Mirror
Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple?
hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review is running an article that's questioning the very premise of the Apple v Samsung case. From the article: 'It isn't the first time Apple has been involved in a high-stakes "copying" court case. If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple's case there was eerily similar to the one they're running today: "we innovated in creating the graphical user interface; Microsoft copied us; if our competitors simply copy us, it's impossible for us to keep innovating." Apple ended up losing the case. But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all.'"
Xerox created the interface which apple purchased in stock swap, it was not apple's original innovation.
It probably doesn't help Apple that comparing the Apple iPhone to the Samsung Galaxy or Google Galaxy Nexus (same phone, slightly different software) is like comparing a nerfed ("Balanced") Dungeons & Dragons wizard to a real fucking wizard.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You mean the ones that Apple copied - after Jobs and Xerox negotiated a deal to allow Xerox to but 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock.
In other words, Apple was happy to give value for value received. Why is this story constantly repeated as an example of Apple being underhanded?
Mother of all demos.
Have gnu, will travel.
how can it be counterfeiting? it has samsung written on the front and no apple logo's or other trademarks in sight.
Counterfeiting is about trying to pass 1 product off as another. They certainly look alike but without trying to pass it off as an apple product it can't be counterfeiting.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
they copy, refine and cultivate. Really, just think about it. Im pretty sure I just burnt some Karma, but worth it.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-comeback-story-2010-10?op=1
http://macdailynews.com/2009/04/14/steve_jobs_engineered_apples_resurrection/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-return-19972011-10062011.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html
I could go on forever on this one. It's very well documented that in 1997 Apple was extremely close to bankruptcy (some speculate days away) when Steve Jobs, then brought back to Apple as an "interim CEO", negotiated with Bill Gates to have Microsoft invest in Apple to the tune of $150M.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Jobs was hell bent on stopping Android because he believed Google copied from them. At the time Schmidt sat on the board of Apple and was given advance early looks at the iPhone. As Android started to look more like iOS, Jobs was starting to believe that it wasn't a coincidence.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If we hardly manufacture anything now and IP is our primary "resource"...
Strawman argument. The US has a $3.7 TRILLION manufacturing sector and it is growing. Just in case that isn't clear, measured by value the US has manufactures more than any other country in the world by a wide margin. By itself the US manufacturing sector would be in top 5 economies in the world. The notion that "we don't manufacture anything anymore" is complete nonsense. The only change is that products with a high proportion of labor cost (labor intensive) are now manufactured where labor is cheaper. However a huge number of products have a low proportion of labor cost (capital intensive) and those are made here. We manufacture automobiles, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, agriculture products, chemicals, integrated circuits, and much much more. The death of US manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated.
The change in manufacturing in the US is that it is evolving somewhat like farming did 100 years ago - fewer workers as a percent of population but producing more. As a proportion of the population manufacturing jobs are going to continue to decrease for some time. That does not mean that the US will cease being a manufacturing powerhouse however.
Counterfeiting is about trying to pass 1 product off as another. They certainly look alike but without trying to pass it off as an apple product it can't be counterfeiting.
There are some amazing counterfeits out there. A trip to any swap meet/flea market across the US will turn up some good (and terrible) counterfeit goods from Coach bags, Louboutin shoes, to Rolex watches.
The Chinese have mastered the art of counterfeiting goods (and, apparently, entire companies).
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/technology/27iht-nec.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-apple-china-fake-idUSTRE77A3U820110811
While the Samsung products may have elements of the look of some Apple products, they're not counterfeit.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
. In the past, it could be argued that Apple was indeed at disadvantage because they lost to Microsoft and therefore had poor sales revenue, and that is what stunted their innovation because they kept creating the same lousy desktop experience over and over.
Then why was Microsoft's revenue not stunted by copying their crappy innovation? Even in the 3.1 days, Windows was preferable over a Mac by most.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Much as I like WWII fighters... that's bunk. You first need to build the tools and dies to form the parts. You need skilled workers who know how to use them. Let's also not forget the main strength that gets overlooked - logistics. Your fuel comes from a refinery that probably uses a few microprocessors here and there. What are you going to do when you start having production problems with your fuels, hydraulic fluids, etc.?
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
That's a pretty asinine statement. Apple *did* stop innovating for a while (or at least nearly did as all attempts to innovate were dismal failures). They started copying the IBM-clone business model and started looking to outside OS's for the next-gen Mac OS. IIRC BeOS was a strong contender until Apple decided to buy NeXT and turn NeXTStep into Mac OS X. The innovation began again after they brought Steve Jobs back and he killed everything that had been done in the 1990's (after he was ousted). Apple very nearly died not long after that original trial and most analysts thought that even the second coming of Jobs wasn't going to save the company.
All "evidence" of innovation in this article happened *after* Jobs came back when the company was at death's doorstep. Even more damning for the author is that all of that "evidence" was patented trade dress, design, and technology that Apple has successfully defended (e.g. eMachines tried to make a rip-off of the iMac and got sued by Apple, I owned one because it's what my parents bought me in High School).
-OS X - Not really Apple's big innovation. It was their acquisition of NeXTStep that lead to OS X and the return of Steve Jobs and innovation at Apple.
-iMac (original CRT version) - Design championed by Steve Jobs after his return, successfully sued eMachines over copying nearly exactly (even came in several bright colors, I had blue)
-iPod - Several years *after* the company had regained some footing, IIRC several patents involved with the iPod were also successfully defended
-iPhone - MANY years *after* the company had become a powerhouse even bigger than before
Where do you live that the only things the population does is manufacture, paint, and manage money?
A nice list provided for your reading pleasure.
Note the lack of manufacturing, painting, and money managing on that list.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.