Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple?

Posted by samzenpus on from the imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery dept.

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.'"

2 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Apple by aglider · · Score: 0, Troll

    does!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  2. Re:What Innovfation? by camperslo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Apple did considerable development beyond what they bought. And they didn't steal anything. Apple did offer to license the disputed technology to Samsung, and has always been willing to pay the basic industry standard rates for glue technology.

    The anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft was very damaging to Netscape, Apple, and many others. It is fortunate that Apple recovered. Many others didn't.

    This Harvard writer doesn't seem to be very insightful or even well informed. It also seems that many coming out of business school are severely lacking ethics.
    One thing is for sure, it wasn't business school types that made Apple successful.
    Is this another MS paid blogger? One was exposed posting pro MS revisionist history to the IEEE. It looks like we're being flooded with corporate "free speech".

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/17/microsoft_pay_zeldman/