To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.




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.
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.