Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530300
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Common practice"
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

[
Apple is not attacking Samsung based on the overall iPhone, because it's pretty obvious the two are completely and utterly different. No, Apple is smarter than that, and is suing using the small parts. Apple is trying to stifle the competition using frivolous small parts - and not the sum.


In other words Samsung is smarter than to copy Apple verbatim just like any plagiarist. So you are saying if one copies parts of a literary work and changes it slightly it is ok?

Colleges these days have sophisticated programs to detect these sorts of things so Students don't pass off other peoples work as theirs even if they lifted parts of it and changed a few things. Because doing so is unethical.

http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/judicialaffairs/integrity/plagia...

What you described Samsung doing is akin to paraphrasing. Here is what George towns honor code says about that:

http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/honor/system/53503.html

In other words it is dishonorable and unethical to pass even parts of anyone else's work as your own. Period.

In other words, your example is of no relevance. Your example would be of relevance if Samsung released the Epple yPhone S4 which looked identical to iOS and the iPhone 4S. However, that's not the case.


You can't be seriously saying that this is ok:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamel...

The chargers, packaging etc look nearly identical. For once look at things objectively. If Samsung could get away with releasing a EyePhone they would.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Common practice
by flypig on Wed 8th Aug 2012 23:45 in reply to "RE[9]: Common practice"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

You've brought up an interesting issue in relation to plagiarism and academic misconduct, but I think it's worth looking at it more carefully.

A crucial part of the Stanford text you referenced is the following: "without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source".

That's because building on others' knowledge is an essential ingredient in research. It's positively encouraged, as long as references are cited.

Preventing people from building on others' work restricts innovation. At the same time, incentives are needed, and patents were intended to balance one against the other (offering limited protection to incentivise innovation, while requiring public disclosure to disincentivise trade-secrets that are later lost to society).

The wider question here is really one of balance. Do the inventions Apple is claiming deserve protection? In other words, was the incentive of protection needed for their development, and would society have been worse off if Apple hadn't publicly documented them?

Of course, this is separate to the issue of trademark protection and whether people who want to buy iPhones are unwittingly being duped into buying Galaxies instead. I'm not exactly sure whether Apple's actually claiming this.

Reply Parent Score: 1