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.'"

10 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What Innovfation? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple did a lot of work to make their UI as a GUI for consumer level users. Xerox interface was for a limited use. Trying to get it in a system that is under 5k.

    For Example Supercomputers can perform Ray Tracing Animations in real time. For our normal PC we cannot (at least at the same quality). In order to attempt this we take a lot of the ideas and find what to reduce and shortcuts that have the smallest visual effects. So we took an idea and make a new product off of it... Innovation.

    But this is a difference case of Samsung and Apple They are both on the same market, selling a product at around the same price with similar specs. So it more of a case of copying then innovating.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Re:Does Apple Truly Innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  3. Re:Apple and the GUI by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Re:This case is different! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Informative

    Samsung's copying is blatent counterfeiting.

    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.
  5. Re:What Innovfation? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want to get nit-picky about it, Microsoft stole nothing either despite things like the mouse cursor being pixel by pixel the same as Mac OS. Apple inadvertently licensed everything to Microsoft under the pretext of developer tools and office applications. I guess the point is, cant we just agree that they're all jerks?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  6. Sure... Here you go. by logicassasin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Sure... Here you go. by symbolset · · Score: 4, Informative

      BTW, that Microsoft investment in Apple is what makes the fine summary untrue. Apple actually won that case on the style of the trashcan and folder icons. Instead of pursuing it further in 1994 there was a settlement deal made with a cross-license of all patents, that investment, Office for Mac, IE the default Mac browser, and some other things. It was not some open-handed Gates charity gesture at all.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  7. Re:It's a blood feud by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  8. Manufacturing strawman by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Apple did stop innovating in the 1990's by Jerslan · · Score: 4, Informative
    "But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all"

    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