Yes, but there are ways of doing so without breaching the copyright of other people and businesses.
All cars don't look exactly like the Ford Mustang, but they share common features - wheels, body, engine, steering wheel, common (but often dissimilar looking) UI. If you made something that was directly copying the Mustang then Ford would be having words with you in court. All the talk on slashdot about the design lawsuit has essentially boiled down to Apple bashing because people are claiming that Apple is claiming ownership of "four wheels and an engine" as theirs when it comes to making a car, when it's simply not true.
Samsung went with, just as one example, an icon for "phone" that looks uncannily like Apple's. Now, the choice of an icon that represents a phone (the receiver) is *not* the issue, just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear - there are many, many, many icons that use the idea of an old style telephone and/or telephone receiver, of which Apple's iOS icon is one example. Apple did not invent the idea of using this icon, nor did they invent the concept of the rounded square, nor did they invent the colour green, or using white as the face font colour - the fact that Samsung made their icon look like Apple's icon is the issue. They could have put the receiver icon at a different angle, or used a different icon with the whole 'old style' phone body too, or used a different background colour, or a different decal colour etc. Add this up across many of the icons and the way the UI is presented, and pair it with the physical design of the phone too and you end up with something that all the reviewers thought was just like the iPhone.
In the same way that simply having a black rectangular phone with rounded corners is also not the entire issue - there are many phones like that, but as one of several other elements combined together, you end up with the iPhone 3G.
You called me a hypocrite because I'm not either a) unfailingly 100% critical of Apple or b) unfailingly 100% positive.
You either haven't understood my points (possible, but unlikely - I don't think you're an idiot, but that could be it), or you're being wilfully ignorant to try and win the argument by making stuff up.
Let's say I make a copy of the current Ford Mustang, and Ford sues me because of it.
What exactly in the car is an actual Ford invention? Can you specify something nobody did before Ford? (Perhaps mass production of automobiles, but certainly not the automobile itself). How about something that took a load of R&D dollars?
I defend certain things that they have done, and criticise others. See, the world is not black and white, as much as slashdot would like to think it is.
Apple's original lawsuit over the design of Samsung's copy of the iPhone 3G was legitimate - the thing was pretty much Xeroxed and shipped. Everyone knew it, every review commented on it, everyone speculated that it would draw a lawsuit and it did.
What I *don't* think are legit are the subsequent "lawsuit wars" that appear to have sprung up over nonsense like unlocking a phone by sliding on the screen, or taking photos on a phone and having them attach to emails, or voice search but on a phone and all that other trivial stuff.
It's not hypocrisy to hold both of those positions simultaneously. To claim so is just ridiculously naive, or just a deliberate attempt to discredit me to win the argument rather than addressing the actual points.
Ah, the cutting your nose off to spite your face argument. You said it - if it helps you sleep at night.
I mean, all those reviewers (who I *guess* could have all been paid by Apple as shills to say Samsung's phone was identical to the iPhone) could be wrong I suppose.
I'm not talking about the ridiculous "swipe to unlock" lawsuits here, or "organising data.... on a phone!" lawsuits. I'm talking about the straight up Samsung copied the iPhone 3G suit, which did have legs. (Apple overreached considerably by bringing the tablets into it - they should have just stuck to the phones).
I sleep perfectly well at night, as it happens. Better when I haven't been staring at Unity. What has been seen can never be unseen.
This is about the iPhone and Samsung's copy (Apple were really stretching it with the tablets - the box art and design look identical, as well as the connector and the charger etc, but the physical tablets themselves are distinct, especially when turned on).
You will note I have been talking about the original infringement - the copy of the iPhone that everyone reviewing the thing commented on.
No, you have to add the disclaimers or people attempt to put words in your mouth.
For example, if you talk about the iPod or iTunes in any capacity unless you specifically note that you are aware that Apple did not "invent" the mp3 player or downloading music from the internet then someone goes off on a big rant about it.
It just helps to set out some nice, clear statements of intent when it comes to Apple threads since half the slashdot population can't discuss the subject without frothing, raging and telling lies.
How am I trolling in my original comment (note that disagreeing with you is not trolling)? I was certainly a bit flippant and a little sarcastic, but I'm not formally debating here.
But I guess I forget myself - how does it work on slashdot now? Oh yes, "You said something negative about Apple! You're a paid shill for Google!"
Every time this is brought up it is dismissed (likely due to wilful ignorance rather than actual stupidity - I do not believe those actively bashing Apple are actually genuinely stupid) as "lolz they sued over a rounded rectangle" when really they did nothing of the sort. That design element is one of many elements (none of which are unique to one particular vendor) that come together to make a product.
There are myriad ways to make a rectangular phone with rounded corners and a big screen and not make it look exactly like an iPhone. Samsung chose instead to make their phone look uncannily like an iPhone. They didn't get sued "just" for rounded corners, but then everyone knows that, but it's fashionable to break it down to "lulz, apple claims it owns rectangles" for a quick +5 'insightful' moderation.
They didn't just "make a picture frame-a-like", they copied the whole design.
There are *plenty* of black, rounded rectangular phones out there that don't ape the iPhone exactly (and that are not being sued over). Samsung just went for the direct rip off. So much so that everyone who reviewed the thing mentioned it.
Oh wait, you're saying Apple having its stuff taken by Samsung is *Apple* as the mugger. Right.
The whole thing is a farce, but I don't think anyone is forgetting that Samsung essentially made an iPhone 3G and slapped a Samsung badge on it. Every (third party, unaffiliated with Apple) reviewer mentioned that it was uncomfortably similar.
Then suddenly it seems like Apple hasn't licenced certain GSM patents.... how.... coincidental!
DISCLAIMER: The lawsuit farce is just getting silly, and software patents are getting ridiculous.
In what way? If they have a patent on it then, legally, it's theirs whether we like it or not (I do not like it, but such is life).
If it was someone else's then why not patent it? Even if you don't agree with the concept of Intellectual Property then simply work against the system by patenting your designs and releasing them into the wild so that no one else can monopolise them.
I stopped reading due to his clear lack of ability regarding the possessive apostrophe... oh wait, this is on slashdot were speling and grammer dont mater at al.
Manganese is a transition metal, and it certainly oxidises very readily - down to +7 in fact. I'm sure most people who have done high school chemistry remember the dark purple KMnO4 solution.
Zinc is also a transition metal, and is what is used in the galvanising process.
But that's just it - an ARM based laptop from Apple in the first place is merely a rumour at this point. You've already judged them as evil and anti-Open because of something Microsoft has done. The Apple ARM laptop doesn't even officially exist, even as a product announcement, or perhaps not even at all, and yet you're pinning a label to them for locking it down like Microsoft's future ARM offerings.
By all means, judge them for things they are *actually doing* (and there are certainly several choices), it's just annoying to see so many people on slashdot treat Apple rumours as press releases from Apple themselves.
If it's not gone, then what was all the rage on here about? I suppose it was merely an announcement that it actually was going for good - it has been deprecated for the whole life of OS X.
You are seriously suggesting that Apple are colluding to "remove freedom" because they had a similar price to Microsoft for a developer program, and that MS has announced mandatory bootloader locking thus it is "obvious" Apple will too?
I bought Fallout: New Vegas on Steam for $5, and peanut butter costs $5 in the store. This is clear evidence that Bethesda will be releasing a range of peanut based products.
And when the market for getting your apps from "anywhere" is so small as to be effectively insignificant?
This is what I was talking about - the current state of Android is light years ahead of where Win Mobile and Palm were before the iPhone. Unless you really are going it alone and writing all your own software for your phone, you're better off in the current environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there are ways of doing so without breaching the copyright of other people and businesses.
All cars don't look exactly like the Ford Mustang, but they share common features - wheels, body, engine, steering wheel, common (but often dissimilar looking) UI. If you made something that was directly copying the Mustang then Ford would be having words with you in court. All the talk on slashdot about the design lawsuit has essentially boiled down to Apple bashing because people are claiming that Apple is claiming ownership of "four wheels and an engine" as theirs when it comes to making a car, when it's simply not true.
Samsung went with, just as one example, an icon for "phone" that looks uncannily like Apple's. Now, the choice of an icon that represents a phone (the receiver) is *not* the issue, just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear - there are many, many, many icons that use the idea of an old style telephone and/or telephone receiver, of which Apple's iOS icon is one example. Apple did not invent the idea of using this icon, nor did they invent the concept of the rounded square, nor did they invent the colour green, or using white as the face font colour - the fact that Samsung made their icon look like Apple's icon is the issue. They could have put the receiver icon at a different angle, or used a different icon with the whole 'old style' phone body too, or used a different background colour, or a different decal colour etc. Add this up across many of the icons and the way the UI is presented, and pair it with the physical design of the phone too and you end up with something that all the reviewers thought was just like the iPhone.
In the same way that simply having a black rectangular phone with rounded corners is also not the entire issue - there are many phones like that, but as one of several other elements combined together, you end up with the iPhone 3G.
No, you really didn't.
You called me a hypocrite because I'm not either a) unfailingly 100% critical of Apple or b) unfailingly 100% positive.
You either haven't understood my points (possible, but unlikely - I don't think you're an idiot, but that could be it), or you're being wilfully ignorant to try and win the argument by making stuff up.
Nice non-sequitur.
Let's say I make a copy of the current Ford Mustang, and Ford sues me because of it.
What exactly in the car is an actual Ford invention? Can you specify something nobody did before Ford? (Perhaps mass production of automobiles, but certainly not the automobile itself). How about something that took a load of R&D dollars?
This one:
http://www.bitterwallet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Bitterwallet-Apple-iPhone-vs-Samsung-Galaxy.jpg
I defend certain things that they have done, and criticise others. See, the world is not black and white, as much as slashdot would like to think it is.
Apple's original lawsuit over the design of Samsung's copy of the iPhone 3G was legitimate - the thing was pretty much Xeroxed and shipped. Everyone knew it, every review commented on it, everyone speculated that it would draw a lawsuit and it did.
What I *don't* think are legit are the subsequent "lawsuit wars" that appear to have sprung up over nonsense like unlocking a phone by sliding on the screen, or taking photos on a phone and having them attach to emails, or voice search but on a phone and all that other trivial stuff.
It's not hypocrisy to hold both of those positions simultaneously. To claim so is just ridiculously naive, or just a deliberate attempt to discredit me to win the argument rather than addressing the actual points.
Ah, the cutting your nose off to spite your face argument. You said it - if it helps you sleep at night.
I mean, all those reviewers (who I *guess* could have all been paid by Apple as shills to say Samsung's phone was identical to the iPhone) could be wrong I suppose.
I'm not talking about the ridiculous "swipe to unlock" lawsuits here, or "organising data.... on a phone!" lawsuits. I'm talking about the straight up Samsung copied the iPhone 3G suit, which did have legs. (Apple overreached considerably by bringing the tablets into it - they should have just stuck to the phones).
I sleep perfectly well at night, as it happens. Better when I haven't been staring at Unity. What has been seen can never be unseen.
I knew it wouldn't take long for the "I disagree with you therefore you are a shill" argument.
Weak.
iPad? What?
This is about the iPhone and Samsung's copy (Apple were really stretching it with the tablets - the box art and design look identical, as well as the connector and the charger etc, but the physical tablets themselves are distinct, especially when turned on).
You will note I have been talking about the original infringement - the copy of the iPhone that everyone reviewing the thing commented on.
Did you not look at the parentheses you quoted?
I guess not.
Can't really reply effectively if you don't comprehend my post, despite actually quoting the relevant section.
Try again, I'm here all evening (not being paid by Apple. lolz).
No, you have to add the disclaimers or people attempt to put words in your mouth.
For example, if you talk about the iPod or iTunes in any capacity unless you specifically note that you are aware that Apple did not "invent" the mp3 player or downloading music from the internet then someone goes off on a big rant about it.
It just helps to set out some nice, clear statements of intent when it comes to Apple threads since half the slashdot population can't discuss the subject without frothing, raging and telling lies.
How am I trolling in my original comment (note that disagreeing with you is not trolling)? I was certainly a bit flippant and a little sarcastic, but I'm not formally debating here.
But I guess I forget myself - how does it work on slashdot now? Oh yes, "You said something negative about Apple! You're a paid shill for Google!"
Who says this is about a picture frame shape?
Every time this is brought up it is dismissed (likely due to wilful ignorance rather than actual stupidity - I do not believe those actively bashing Apple are actually genuinely stupid) as "lolz they sued over a rounded rectangle" when really they did nothing of the sort. That design element is one of many elements (none of which are unique to one particular vendor) that come together to make a product.
There are myriad ways to make a rectangular phone with rounded corners and a big screen and not make it look exactly like an iPhone. Samsung chose instead to make their phone look uncannily like an iPhone. They didn't get sued "just" for rounded corners, but then everyone knows that, but it's fashionable to break it down to "lulz, apple claims it owns rectangles" for a quick +5 'insightful' moderation.
They didn't just "make a picture frame-a-like", they copied the whole design.
There are *plenty* of black, rounded rectangular phones out there that don't ape the iPhone exactly (and that are not being sued over). Samsung just went for the direct rip off. So much so that everyone who reviewed the thing mentioned it.
Yeah, having your stuff stolen is being mugged.
Oh wait, you're saying Apple having its stuff taken by Samsung is *Apple* as the mugger. Right.
The whole thing is a farce, but I don't think anyone is forgetting that Samsung essentially made an iPhone 3G and slapped a Samsung badge on it. Every (third party, unaffiliated with Apple) reviewer mentioned that it was uncomfortably similar.
Then suddenly it seems like Apple hasn't licenced certain GSM patents.... how .... coincidental!
DISCLAIMER: The lawsuit farce is just getting silly, and software patents are getting ridiculous.
In what way? If they have a patent on it then, legally, it's theirs whether we like it or not (I do not like it, but such is life).
If it was someone else's then why not patent it? Even if you don't agree with the concept of Intellectual Property then simply work against the system by patenting your designs and releasing them into the wild so that no one else can monopolise them.
By "global innovator" do you mean "will copy designs of companies from all over the globe"? ;)
DISCLAIMER: I love the Galaxy II S and think the whole lawsuit farce is stupid.
So taking someone to court because they copied your design is "mugging"? (talking about the original lawsuit, not this one)
Interesting.
DISCLAIMER: I think patent lawsuits are stupid.
I stopped reading due to his clear lack of ability regarding the possessive apostrophe... oh wait, this is on slashdot were speling and grammer dont mater at al.
Manganese is a transition metal, and it certainly oxidises very readily - down to +7 in fact. I'm sure most people who have done high school chemistry remember the dark purple KMnO4 solution.
Zinc is also a transition metal, and is what is used in the galvanising process.
How can something that doesn't exist create something?
This is going to get into a discussion about quantum mechanics, I can feel it.
Perhaps change that to petrol. Diesel isn't really all that flammable - you can even put fires out with it.
So my android phone is subsidizing your iphone. Nice.
Well, it has to be useful for *something* right?
DISCLAIMER: Relax cupcake, this is a joke. Sorry "In Soviet Russia, bad joke parodies YOU"
But that's just it - an ARM based laptop from Apple in the first place is merely a rumour at this point. You've already judged them as evil and anti-Open because of something Microsoft has done. The Apple ARM laptop doesn't even officially exist, even as a product announcement, or perhaps not even at all, and yet you're pinning a label to them for locking it down like Microsoft's future ARM offerings.
By all means, judge them for things they are *actually doing* (and there are certainly several choices), it's just annoying to see so many people on slashdot treat Apple rumours as press releases from Apple themselves.
If it's not gone, then what was all the rage on here about? I suppose it was merely an announcement that it actually was going for good - it has been deprecated for the whole life of OS X.
I really can't tell if you're trolling.
You are seriously suggesting that Apple are colluding to "remove freedom" because they had a similar price to Microsoft for a developer program, and that MS has announced mandatory bootloader locking thus it is "obvious" Apple will too?
I bought Fallout: New Vegas on Steam for $5, and peanut butter costs $5 in the store. This is clear evidence that Bethesda will be releasing a range of peanut based products.
And when the market for getting your apps from "anywhere" is so small as to be effectively insignificant?
This is what I was talking about - the current state of Android is light years ahead of where Win Mobile and Palm were before the iPhone. Unless you really are going it alone and writing all your own software for your phone, you're better off in the current environment.