Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 22:14 UTC
Legal "The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit. It's been a unique opportunity to peer behind the curtain of how these two companies operate, as the trial seeks to answer the question: did Samsung copy Apple? But there's actually another question that I think is much more interesting to the future of innovation in the technology industry: regardless of whether the courts say that Samsung copied Apple or not, would we all be better off if we allowed - even encouraged - companies to copy one another?" This is very relevant.
Thread beginning with comment 531579
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ridiculous
by imhotepx on Tue 21st Aug 2012 00:40 UTC
imhotepx
Member since:
2012-08-08

Most ridiculous thing I've read this morning. There are many reasons why this is just wrong. For now I'll just say this would kill innovation all together and stifle the upstarts who won't be able to compete with the entrenched (and rich) players that will just copy whatever the new innovation of the day is.

Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ridiculous
by Lazarus on Tue 21st Aug 2012 01:04 in reply to "Ridiculous"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.


Do it.

That is likely the only way you're going to understand that copying something isn't going to have the dire results you think it will.

You're not going to magically gain any kind of an audience, let alone any meaningful fraction of this site's readers. Ad money? Good luck. Will OSNews take a nose dive because you or anyone else copies it?

Get real.

Same goes for phones and anything else.

Reply Parent Score: 24

RE: Ridiculous
by satsujinka on Tue 21st Aug 2012 01:08 in reply to "Ridiculous"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

If an idea can be copied so quickly that the originator of the idea can't establish themselves, then the idea probably wasn't very innovative.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by koffie on Tue 21st Aug 2012 11:21 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

And that is exactly the problem. The 'iPhone' might seem simple to copy at first, but when did the iPhone come out? 2007. It is (in my opinion) only since the Samsung Galaxy S2 and now Android 4.0/4.1 that decent competition is there from that corner, and even with that many cores thrown at it - it still sometimes feels laggy.

The problem is that it "looked" the same at first glance, but it wasn't, it was a bad copy. They copied the looks, and completely missed out on the 'feel' part. And yes that reflects badly on Apple, since people think it's "just the same", and Android manufacturers try very hard to convince customers of just this - that it is the same. People are put of then by this idea of a 'smartphone'.

Android, and certainly the Samsung Touchwiz interface was simply put, a bad copy, and people dismissed this as "a bad idea" in general, and yes I know quite a few of those, who refuse to even consider a new 'smartphone' because they had bad experiences with crappy Android 1.6 phones.

Now just to be clear, I use an iPhone and I never liked Android until it reached 4.0, and that's not out of blind fanboy-ism. I'm confronted with mobile development every day - and in order to do this "right" you have to get to know the phone, so you have to use it. For example, I really like what MS managed to do with the Windows Mobile 7 architecture, which is probably the nicest I've seen in mobile. This is a ground-up rebuild of their own (pretty neat) ideas, it was maybe inspired by, and certainly copied a lot of things from iOS - but they did a good job copying it. The only things stopping me from switching to WinMo7 are messed up software upgrade path, my iOS software collection and decent hardware.

And that is also something I still want to see: decent Android hardware where I can leave on my wifi, gprs/3g/ bluetooth and location services and still get through the day on one charge, without relying on battery optimizers/appliction killer apps. I don't want to do the phone's work, and the iPhone apparently still is the only smartphone that is able to pull this off.

Every day I:
- call approximately 1 hour/day, of which half of the time it's connected to my bluetooth handsfree set in my car
- send 20 to 40 or so messages
- connect it to my car-stereo to play music - which doesn't charge it, thanks to Apple changing that for the iPhone vs iPod, what's even worse is that Apple decided it had to turn on the screen constantly to warn you about this fact that it isn't charging - draining the battery even more.
- Play an occasional game
- read my mails, check facebook,
- Check in occasionally in foursquare and have google latitude on 24/7

I never turn off any feature on my 2-y old iPhone 4, and I only charge my phone at night, wake up, get through the day and at 1am - when I go to bed, my phone usually has about 10% battery left, sometimes it runs out if it was a busy day. So if other phone manufacturers should copy ONE feature: THIS IS IT. THAT would be good for innovation. Not the "how it looks".

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by tylerdurden on Tue 21st Aug 2012 18:28 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

That is a ridiculously subjective assessment.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Ridiculous
by kwan_e on Tue 21st Aug 2012 01:30 in reply to "Ridiculous"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

For now I'll just say this would kill innovation


Maybe take some time out of your busy schedule to read the article which discusses instances of historical experience in which copying didn't kill innovation but spurred it on.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Ridiculous
by cyrilleberger on Tue 21st Aug 2012 06:57 in reply to "Ridiculous"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Most ridiculous thing I've read this morning. There are many reasons why this is just wrong. For now I'll just say this would kill innovation all together and stifle the upstarts who won't be able to compete with the entrenched (and rich) players that will just copy whatever the new innovation of the day is.


Or it could have the opposite effect, force companies to keep innovating to keep an edge. There are two decisive factors for buyers: features or price. If you have better features, you can justify a higher price and bring attention and consumers to your products. Hence it push you to innovate. More than if you own patents and can use them to block competition.

What I am saying is however not true for all technology fields, it mostly apply to computer systems. But given that it takes between 6 months to a year to bring new features to your customers, if, a company only copy, it will always be 6 months to a year late in the game, and people will stick with the innovative company.

Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.


Why would I visit your blog that will get the article only after the original website ?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 10:07 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Why would I visit your blog that will get the article only after the original website ?


Well, I don't know. Why are you here commenting on this blog that got the news item (original post) after the original blog? Circular, isn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ridiculous
by Jezza on Tue 21st Aug 2012 07:51 in reply to "Ridiculous"
Jezza Member since:
2005-10-13

If that were the case, we'd all be buying our iPeds or inPads etc... for $100 from China. You know, the ones that fell from a truck with the iPad hardware and Android or Maemo installed on them...

The above is even one step ahead of 'copying' as it includes actual hardware theft, but I bet you don't know a single person who has one, which kind of scuppers your argument, really.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Ridiculous
by JeeperMate on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 06:20 in reply to "Ridiculous"
JeeperMate Member since:
2010-06-12

Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.

Actually that should be okay, as long as you leave out OSNews' artworks and branding elements (e.g. OSNews logos and names).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 06:36 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.

Actually that should be okay, as long as you leave out OSNews' artworks and branding elements (e.g. OSNews logos and names).
"


People have been making the I'll-copy-OSNews-and-its-content argument for years, and I've always responded the same: go ahead. Let's see how long you'll last copying every individual article. Let's see how many readers will think you're a dick for doing so.

We mostly link to other people's stuff. It would be insane to prohibit others from doing so.

Reply Parent Score: 2