
Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design - cooldeal
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57517054-37/apple-accused-of-ripping-off-famous-swiss-clock-design/
======
mladenkovacevic
No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an
homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been
elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical
eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship &
precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock
into an exact digital replica.

~~~
Cushman
Sorry, I don't understand the satire here. It sounds like you're mimicking the
response to claims that Apple stole designs from Braun? But the two situations
are nothing alike -- cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products
is a far cry from duplicating a trademarked image more or less exactly.

It seems more likely you're trying to dig on Apple for going thermonuclear on
trade dress while at the same time stealing somebody else's intellectual
property. In which case you have it backwards, and the satire here should be
something about how Apple has no right copying someone else's hard work just
to make a quick buck, and that a numberless clock face with highly contrasting
colors seems obvious _now_ only because they went to so much effort to work it
out.

Except that's not very funny, because it's exactly right. I doubt if even the
most hardcore Apple fanatics would argue SBB doesn't at least have a _case_.
So they'll sue, and Apple might pay a license fee, or change the clock, or
argue that the clock has some reason for not being a valid trademark or
infringing.

And my only question is, if that case goes to trial and SBB wins and Apple has
to stop shipping that clock face and pay some compensation, will HN fill up
with satirical posts ranting about how you can't copyright a minimal clock
face in white, black and red, how this judgment is anticompetitive, stifling
to innovation and will surely be thrown out in a higher court very soon now,
how much an indictment it is of the copyright system in general?

Because that would be a funny joke. Seriously, this community has been _weird_
about Apple of late.

~~~
varunsrin
People probably feel that it is hypocritical to sue one company for copying
your designs, and then turn around and copy designs off someone else,
especially when they happen right a few months apart.

Personally, my moral compass immediately feels that this is worse than just
plain copying, and I assume that is why people are reacting with a stronger
anti-Apple sentiment here.

~~~
Cushman
This is a digression, but I have trouble with the idea of hypocrisy in
general. It's difficult for me to conceive that, morally, espousing wrong
beliefs and adhering to them in one's personal life is _better_ than espousing
wrong beliefs while at least doing the right thing oneself.

(Assuming the people who made these decisions have any interaction with each
other:) If intellectual property is well grounded, Apple is right to defend
their own, but wrong to copy others'. If it is not, they are wrong to defend
their own, but justified in using others'. Yes, they are wrong in either case,
but _tu quoque_ is the sorry refuge taken to avoid having to admit that they
are also right in either.

~~~
sbov
Hypocrisy is the antithesis of the golden rule, which is why I tend to have a
problem with it.

It's not anything that automatically refutes someones arguments, it just tells
me that when it comes to that subject, they're an asshole. And when someone is
being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.

~~~
batista
_> And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their
arguments._

But that's too bad. Better to do what a hypocrite proposes if it's the right
thing, than to ignore it because of what he does.

Here's a nice article on the topic:

There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-
productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to
people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological
outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread
problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas
his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to
accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone
were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative
infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive
strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less
complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal
contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that
it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is
bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This
is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our
capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives,
no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers!

We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them
with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much
that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At
least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least
change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of
the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change!

There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad
thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't
stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop
doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except
the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail:
the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing,
only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts.
"You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does
it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The
Bad Thing again.

But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the
Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?

etc: <http://imomus.livejournal.com/362894.html>

~~~
Permit
Sounds like the end result could have been avoided had the "visionary" simply
not been hypocritical and avoided doing "a bad thing".

~~~
batista
Yes, and it also could have been avoided if everybody paid more attention to
what is beneficial for them (i.e what the visionary said) than to what the
visionary does or does not.

You just gave a perfect example of the narrow minded logic explained in the
article, that cares not what is good for them to do, but if the guy that
advocates it is "consistent".

Not to mention the other three paragraphs I quoted, that explain why "avoiding
being hypocritical" is not always possible.

To put it in very crude way, if you see a beaten-down meth addict telling you
"just say no to meth", I'd say DO listen to him, even if he's doing it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _To put it in very crude way, if you see a beaten-down meth addict telling
> you "just say no to meth", I'd say DO listen to him, even if he's doing it._
> //

Practically the problem with this is that unless you know the right thing to
do before hand then you can't determine the right thing to do. The hypocrite
does one thing and instructs you not to do that thing (or to do another
instead) - but by their actions they're showing, rightly or wrongly, that the
thing they're counselling against is something they've chosen [to some extent]
for themselves.

In the case of the meth addict you assume that they're being helpful because
you assume (barring personal wisdom on the matter) that meth is bad, m'kay.
But perhaps they just want to keep all the lovely, lovely meth for
themselves??

If a person espouses a universal good - avoiding meth is good for everyone. Or
if that person espouses a personal good without explaining why it doesn't
apply to them - avoiding meth is good for you. But still that person acts
opposite to that they espouse - eg take meth. Then they're acting contrary to
what they state will be to their benefit.

You can't trust such a person. Either they act in ways that they know are
detrimental or they are lying to you about the benefits available by following
their actions.

So you can't trust a hypocrites testimony nor can you - without outside
knowledge - learn what actions are best to take solely from their testimony.

Coming back to the case in hand. Is it wrong to copy someone's design? We
can't tell if Apple Corp consider it wrong or right. All we know is that
they're untrustworthy. Then they use legal process to punish someone for
allegedly copying a design whilst on the other hand copying a design and show
that they're willing to act to the detriment of others who follow their lead.
It's kinda hypocrisy+plus: not only do we say not to do that which we do but
we'll punish you for doing that which we do.

> _narrow minded logic explained in the article, that cares not what is good
> for them to do, but if the guy that advocates it is "consistent"_ //

Whatever a hypocrite advocates is basically irrelevant. One should discard
their testimony about the good of an action and use outside sources/testimony
to establish independently the nature of any good that can be derived by
following their instruction. A hypocrite though, as you appear to contend,
would be a valid source of ideas just not a sound source of wisdom (ie take
their idea but don't follow it without independently examining it).

E&OE

tl;dr don't trust a hypocrite

~~~
batista
> _Practically the problem with this is that unless you know the right thing
> to do before hand then you can't determine the right thing to do. The
> hypocrite does one thing and instructs you not to do that thing (or to do
> another instead) - but by their actions they're showing, rightly or wrongly,
> that the thing they're counselling against is something they've chosen [to
> some extent] for themselves._

Yes, this is where THINKING comes in.

First step, stop caring about anything specific about the person that gave you
the advice, and only consider the advice.

Second step, try to think if it's good advice, in itself. If it is, follow it.

The guy being a hypocrite or not should not come into play at all. Neither
should trust.

You should not follow some advice because you trust the guy who suggested it
to you. You should follow it because you evaluated it.

~~~
lotharbot
Part of the process of evaluating advice is evaluating the credibility of the
one who gave the advice.

In particular, if a person's behavior or circumstances conflict with the
advice, it becomes important to evaluate why that conflict exists. Is the
advice fundamentally sound and there's something wrong with the advice-giver,
or is the problem with the advice itself? There may be some subtle
implementation detail that you overlook in your theoretical "ignore the
person" evaluation, which is actually a fatal flaw with the advice (for
example, it may require an unrealistic amount of discipline to undertake.)

Likewise, if a person's advice and their behavior/circumstances match up, it's
important to evaluate whether the advice is actually effective. Did this
person see this result because of the advice, or because of something else?
It's possible the advice is fundamentally sound; likewise, it's possible the
advice is a mistaken conclusion based on coincidence. If the person giving the
advice is known to be insightful, self-examining, etc. that suggests a greater
likelihood of the advice being valuable.

------
wickedchicken
On an unrelated note, I wish there was a wall clock with the real Swiss stop-
to-go[1] action...

Edit: and [2] would make for a great 11.5" laptop sticker

[1] <http://www.3quarks.com/en/StationClock/index.html>

[2] [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/SBB-CFF-
FFS.sv...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/SBB-CFF-FFS.svg)

~~~
JSGraef
I'm pretty sure you can buy them from inside the SBB ticket centers, but you
can at least buy wrist watches from mondaine:

<http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine/>

edit: Looks like you can buy the wall clocks online from SBB itself
[http://www.sbbshop.ch/pub/index.php?page=goods&c=8&s...](http://www.sbbshop.ch/pub/index.php?page=goods&c=8&sc=12&l=en&sbbsid=49obgjlvbn5aqnfem8l09m54g0)

~~~
sschueller
They do not start/stop.

~~~
pmjordan
I'm certain I've seen clocks which pause on the minute like the stop-to-go
ones sold in rail enthusiast magazines, railway museum gift shops etc. many
years ago. Obviously, they don't include an actual stop-to-go master/slave
system, they just fake it.

~~~
sschueller
They used to make stoptogo versions back in 2001 but discontinued them because
it loose or gain 20s a day.

The real ones get a pulse over the power line from a master clock every minute
setting the time. The rotation of the seconds is just a motor using the
electric grid's 50 Hz.

------
Tichy
The Swiss had the right idea, but they made a crucial mistake in their
implementation: they completely missed that people might want to look at the
watch while on the move, and opted for a stationary, heavy and immobile
implementation.

By putting it onto a small, portable device, Apple arguably added the
_crucial_ ingredient to make it a mass success (billions of users instead of a
few Swiss citizens, who even have to be forced by their government to use it).

So I think Apple added the most important aspect to the mix and should
therefore be considered the inventors of the clock design.

~~~
rmoriz
Your arguments are invalid:

1\. Swiss people are not forced to use the railway, the literally love it.
Also the design was licensed by other European railway companies e.g. Deutsche
Bahn

2\. You can already buy mobile devices (watches) and even a licensed iOS
mobile app with the design. E.g. the German edition
[http://www.bahn.de/bahnshop1435/shopxml/design/zeitzeichen/a...](http://www.bahn.de/bahnshop1435/shopxml/design/zeitzeichen/armbanduhr_herren.shtml)
or the Swiss original
[http://www.sbbshop.ch/pub/index.php?page=goods&c=8&l...](http://www.sbbshop.ch/pub/index.php?page=goods&c=8&l=de&sbbsid=babf9af73eee4b84bc8151cbf6db576d&l=fr&l=de&l=fr&l=it&l=en&l=de)

~~~
Tichy
Yeah, but those are not really digital, so they are irrelevant.

~~~
rmoriz
The "SwissRailwayClock" iOS app is digital and… licensed.

German: [http://www.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/apple-klaut-bahnhofs-
uhr...](http://www.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/apple-klaut-bahnhofs-uhr-der-sbb-
id2040821.html)

~~~
Tichy
Didn't know that. But if it was an iPhone app before, I think it is OK. It is
their phone and their platform, so they can do with it what they want.

------
mullingitover
Hey everybody, it's legally ok. Here's why: The software on the Apple side
could not be placed into the processor on the clock, and vice versa, and that
means they're not interchangeable.

~~~
mckoss
Interchangeability is not concept in patent or trademark law that I'm aware
of. Do you have a legal citation?

~~~
Tichy
It was an argument in the recent Apple vs Samsung court battle. Samsung's
prior art was dismissed, one of the jurors explained that it didn't count
because the software of the prior art phone would not run on a modern phone.

~~~
devcpp
That sounds quite arbitrary, and if anything, it's the first time I've heard
about this "principle".

~~~
pja
It wasn't an argument made in the courtroom, it was an argument made by one of
the jurors during their deliberations. Obviously it's completely false: which
processor a the program runs on ought to make no difference whatsoever to
whether a system including that program infringes a patent.

In a just world, this would constitute grounds for an appeal by Samsung all by
itself, but I've no idea what the legal position is.

------
anonymouz
It seems that a lot of people argue that this is entirely different from the
Samsung v. Apple case, because this is just an "homage" and SBB/Mondaine don't
directly compete with Apple.

Hewever, SBB stands to loose a symbolic icon: What is now the Swiss railway
clock may well become "that iOS clock". Mondaine will probably also not be
happy when their watches will be recognized as "that iPad clock".

It seems like a significant dilution of trade dress/a trademark to me.

~~~
jeltz
Yeah, and I am not sure if the SBB would wish to license it to Apple. At least
not for a price Apple would be willing to pay for just a clock.

------
DigitalSea
Did Apple think they would get away with copying one of the most iconic clock
designs ever without anyone noticing? I am speechless. Are cracks starting to
show in a post-Jobs Apple too big to fix? I don't want to bash them, but this
is blatant and unlicensed copying at its best. Kind of ironic given the recent
events with Samsung.

~~~
dvhh
I think the Apple RDF was more a "Steve Jobs" RDF

~~~
icebraining
Actually, that's exactly right, according to Bud Tribble, the person who
coined it, inside Apple:

    
    
      "Bud, that's crazy!", I told him. "We've hardly even
      started yet. There's no way we can get it done by then."
    
      "I know," he responded, in a low voice, almost a whisper.
    
      "You know? If you know the schedule is off-base, why don't
      you correct it?" 
    
      "Well, it's Steve. Steve insists that we're shipping in early 
      1982, and won't accept answers to the contrary. The best way to 
      describe the situation is a term from Star Trek. Steve has a 
      reality distortion field."
    
      "A what?"
    
      "A reality distortion field. In his presence, reality is 
      malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything.
      It wears off when he's not around, but it makes it hard to
      have realistic schedules. And there's a couple of other
      things you should know about working with Steve."
    
      "What else?"
    
      "Well, just because he tells you that something is awful or
      great, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll feel that way tomorrow. 
      You have to low-pass filter his input. And then, he's really
      funny about ideas. If you tell him a new idea, he'll usually
      tell you that he thinks it's stupid. But then, if he actually
      likes it, exactly one week later, he'll come back to you and
      propose your idea to you, as if he thought of it."
    
      I thought Bud was surely exaggerating, until I observed Steve
      in action over the next few weeks. The reality distortion field
      was a confounding melange of a charismatic rhetorical style, an
      indomitable will, and an eagerness to bend any fact to fit the
      purpose at hand. If one line of argument failed to persuade, he
      would deftly switch to another. Sometimes, he would throw you
      off balance by suddenly adopting your position as his own,
      without acknowledging that he ever thought differently.
    
      Amazingly, the reality distortion field seemed to be effective 
      even if you were acutely aware of it, although the effects would 
      fade after Steve departed. We would often discuss potential
      techniques for grounding it (see Are You Gonna Do It?), but
      after a while most of us gave up, accepting it as a force of
      nature.
    

[http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Reality_Distortion_Fi...](http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Reality_Distortion_Field.txt)

~~~
talmand
I like how most people remember the bit about the reality distortion field but
don't remember the part about Jobs stealing people's ideas and presenting them
as his own.

------
kamaal
Its not a rip off.

Apple is doing great service by redesigning the Swiss clock design.

In fact the watch manufacturer is to blame for badly designing the watch
before its time.

Apple is doing great service to humanity by redesigning this clock to its
right position in the world they must be rewarded for it. Swiss clock maker
must be punished for badly designing this watch which is rightly fully
Apple's, stolen by this maker before its time.

------
dmix
> In 2009, Apple sent a letter of rejection to popular app developer Tapbots
> -- the makers of Tweetbot and other iOS apps -- saying the clock icon the
> company used in its pocket converter application looked too much like the
> icon used in Apple's own telephone app.

Yes the appropriate response to Apple's ridiculous actions is to act in the
same manor. /s

Rather than pointing out hypocrisy, how about pointing out how EVERYTHING is a
copy of everything before it in design. That is a constructive position, this
is just inflammatory.

~~~
Tichy
"how about pointing out how EVERYTHING is a copy of everything before it in
design."

That was the sensible position to take before courts started to award billions
of dollars in damages for design infringements.

------
mxfh
It't not just a copy it's a bad copy.

The small second markers seem to collide with the neighboring bigger 5-second
markers. While the original design keeps an equal white-space between the
markers, which leads to differing angles between the markers centers. Apple
has all the same angles, not differentiating between the big and small markers
which lead to this crammed looking version.

[EDIT, got curious and started measuring] Apparently I was wrong, the angles
are also all the same (6 degrees) in the original. But still, optically the
space between the hour and adjacent minute markers looks way better in the
original.

------
Tichy
Well before Apple adapted it, it was used only by a very tiny fraction of the
worlds population. Apple made it a mass market success. Therefore I think it
is fair to say that Apple actually invented the design. The Swiss tried but
failed to make it popular. Apple did it _right_.

~~~
scriptproof
Making a product "popular" does not turn it into invention and does not give
legal rights to the design.

~~~
Tichy
Have you tried defending that notion in court? Actually I think the inventor
is the party who has the highest marketing budget to spend.

~~~
jyrkesh
Wait, was your OP satire or not?

~~~
rmc
Poe's law strikes again.

------
chmars
Is the Swiss railway clock a protected trademark at all?

Judging from the Swiss trademark registry, the protection as a trademark ended
a few days ago on September 3, 2012:

<https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/de/tm/512830>

In addition, the trademark is only protected for class 14 as clocks and its
parts but not for other classes and in particular not for software.

~~~
Renaud
That's the most useful comment of this whole discussion, and I'm sorry it's
buried so deep.

------
simonh
The Swiss railway has contacted Apple, who have yet to respond. At that point,
when Apple respond, we'll know whether they're hypocrites or not. If they
refuse to change the design or licence it, they are.

Should they have copied it in the first place? No. They were wrong to do it
and they need to make amends.

Is this similar to the Samsung case? Let's see, we have 400 page Samsung
documents explaining in minute detail exactly how they intended to duplicate
the iPhone user interface, and when asked to stop doing it they refused.
Hopefully Apple will show more grace and honesty. Maybe they won't. But right
now that's all up in the air.

Edit: I see this case as a litmus test for the anti-apple crowd the way the
Aliyun case was a litmus test for Apple supporters. In the Aliyun case, it
would be easy to accuse Google of hypocrisy and make jokes about openness when
in fact it was just about Acer meeting their contractual obligations as
members of the open handset alliance. In this case it would be easy to paint
Apple a plagiarist and hypocrite, when they still clearly have an opportunity
to come clean and make right. IMHO both are good ways to tell if someone is
actually capable of being fair minded or not.

~~~
cageface
Apple's the one trying to claim the high ground here and Apple's the one going
on the offensive with their design patent suits so it's only right that we
hold them to a higher standard.

This is the same reason that the iPhone 5 and iOS 6 are receiving so much
criticism. When you strut around in public trumpeting your deep cultural
devotion to innovation and use shaky patents to get competitors products
yanked off shelves you damn well better walk the walk.

~~~
simonh
To your first point, agreed. They need to come clean and make good.

I don't see what this has got to do with any general criticism of the iPhone 5
or iOS 6 though.

------
ender7
There is a difference here (although I admit I'm experiencing some lovely
schadenfreude glow over here). Samsung built camouflaged products that were
designed to confuse buyers into thinking they were buying an iPad. Here, Apple
has ripped off an iconic design, but there's little doubt that what they are
selling is still an iPhone and not a Swiss watch.

Still, trade dress (and accusations of douchebaggery) still apply -- and, in a
broader sense, Apple are still hypocrits for decrying "copying" while still
doing it themselves. The exact nature of the copying is simply different.

~~~
codeka
Given that all of Samsung's phones have the word "Samsung" stamped on them in
fairly large letters, I don't think they were doing anything to intentionally
confuse buyers.

Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.

~~~
culturestate
> Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.

Well, if they weren't intending to do it, then it was quite a happy accident.
[http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-
bu...](http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/)

------
pmarin
We have a proverb here in Spain that you can translate as _he who sows the
wind shall reap the whirlwind_

~~~
lotharbot
That's a familiar proverb in English as well. It appears in the (Hebrew)
Bible, in Hosea 8:7 -
[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+8%3A7&...](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+8%3A7&version=NIV;NVI)

------
poub
I don’t understand why Apple made such blatant mistake.

Originally the clock app wasn’t included on the iPad.

This version of clock is well made, simple to use as this kind of app should
be. Not rocket science but alternatives version are clearly missing on the
Appstore. (I looked for one of them that could replicate the one I have on my
Android 4 Galaxy S2).

(Re)introducing the Clock app is great, but borrowing the design of very well
known clock is a even better.

It fit the trend of Apple reunding well known texture and design. If that
trend is good or bad is another question fueled by love and hate feelings.

But Mondaine, the owner of that clock design, have licensing option already in
place : <http://www.mondaine.com/private-label/>

Apple could have _just_ bought the licence of this design. End of story.

Apple could also have taken this opportunity to ask worldwide watchmaker to
give their clockface designs for the official Apple Clock application.

I am sure every watchmaker in the world would have even paid fro that
privilege. After all they are all spending millions in magazine adverts.

I don’t understand the position of Apple _just after_ the Samsung lawsuit.

The result is to show Apple being arrogant once more and it put the company in
a mismatch branding situation that could have been avoided.

Clearly somebody at Apple is not doing his / her job.

We’re talking about a Clock application here! Not Maps which is another fiasco
much much more difficult to fix.

That kind of decision never been the role of Steve Jobs. Who else is missing
at Apple ?

------
MartinCron
I noticed the similarity right away. I had assumed apple had licensed the
design if it were still protected.

I would like to expect better from them. It's a beautiful design and a smart
addition, but doing this at all, regardless of the Samsung case, is shameful.

------
jopt
It's a ripoff, and strange that Apple didn't license the design, assuming they
did their homework and find the IP belonged to someone.

It's not going to confuse anyone. Zero iPads will be returned because the
customers thought this was the famous Swiss wall clock they'd heard so much
about.

So it doesn't have much to do with Apple v. Samsung. Let's not try so hard to
make everything about that; high-resolution thinking should allow for similar
but separate conflicts to exist.

~~~
Blara
are there any numbers on how many people have returned their samsung/iPhone
because they thought it was the other one? I've heard this argument time and
time again but have yet to see any numbers on it.

~~~
jopt
Late reply, sorry. There's some among the data provided to the court. IIRC
Apple submitted an internal report done by Samsung, which indicated Galaxy
Tabs are often returned because users thought they were buying iPads.

------
SODaniel
'Accused'? Well innocent until proven guilty and all but it's a 100% accurate
port of the entire design. Hardly even a question. I think they should have to
pay at least what they are asking Samsung for in the latest lawsuit.

------
josephcooney
Is it just me, or does the digital version have a more prominent drop shadow
on the hands, and thus look more "real" than the real watch?

------
poub
I don’t understand why Apple made such blatant mistake. The clock app wasn’t
included on the iPad and an alternative version clearly missing on the
Appstore.

This version of click is well made, simple to use as this kind of app should
be..

Borrowing the design of very well known clock is a good idea too.

But Mondaine (the owner of that design) have licensing option already in place
: <http://www.mondaine.com/private-label/>

So clearly Apple could have just bought the licence of this design.

But they could also have taken this opportunity to ask worldwide watchmaker to
give their clockface designs for the official Apple Clock application.

I am sure every watchmaker in the world would have paid without questions.
After all they are all spending millions in magazine adverts.

I don’t understand the position of Apple _just after_ the Samsung lawsuit.

The result is to show Apple being arrogant once more and it put the company in
a mismatch branding situation that could have been avoided.

Clearly somebody at Apple is not doing his / her job.

------
hownottowrite
The SBB should be careful. If Apple's unhappy, they can move the rail lines
into the nearest river. They have that power now.

~~~
reddit_clone
If I can't clean up all the coffee, you are paying for my new keyboard!

------
benologist
A bit ironic that CNet is ripping off 2 other sites to tell us this.

------
Mordor
Well, Apple's lack of innovation is going to remain in the spotlight for a
very long time. At least they didn't copy Google Maps lol

------
sneak
Holy shit, design nerds, apple fans/bashers, and clock enthusiasts all up in
arms in one thread!

Personally, this walking stereotype wishes that the cnet article had been
typeset in Comic Sans so that the typeophiles could get outraged too.

------
labizaboffle
Apple also stole the idea from the bite out of the apple from Genesis. (The
Bible, not Phil Collins and Peter Gabriel.)

------
vvpan
There are too many sarcastic comments in this thread. Seriously. There are 10
comments which are essentially the same. I hate to use the cliche comparison
to Reddit, but it's hard not to.

------
dakrisht
I love and have always loved Apple products but shit will hit the fan for them
soon enough...

------
mukaiji
When I first opened the iOS6 timer and the stopwatch, and saw the neon style
button, I was a bit confused.

It looks very nice but I thought it broke with design patterns of iOS in terms
of color scheme, ambiance, typography (all cap text label), or even button
size. It felt more like an Android interface than an iOS one. Anyone feeling
the same way?

------
thudson
I hear that the WC doors on Swiss trains have a slide-to-unlock feature as
well.

------
forensic
"Good artists borrow; great artists steal."

~~~
koide
So Samsung are even better artists than Apple?

~~~
tsahyt
Regardless of the context I'd actually say yes.

------
10char
This, and inevitable references to Braun, have no place in comparison with the
Samsung trial. Samsung made competing products so similar to the effect, and
indeed with the purpose, of confusing consumers.

The recent rise in Apple bashing and calls of hypocrisy is even stranger in
historical context[1]. Perhaps more of us should try and empathize with
Apple's situation and history before passing fashionable judgement.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft>

~~~
beedogs
Jesus. Is this a troll post, or are you being serious?

~~~
adgar
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law>

------
capitao
I own a mondaine watch like this, I rather like it :]

And truthfully, seeing it in ios, I must say I kinda like it, even though its
obviously ripped off and the anit-apply-fanboy in me wants to see blood

------
fatbird
For all the Gruber haters here, his comment is "What’s good for the goose is
good for the gander. Apple needs to cough up a licensing fee here."

------
fla
Apple is very good at marketing, very good. That's how they make people talk
about their products. And it costs them practically nothing.

------
MaysonL
Mountain out of mole-hill: the Apple haters get some fuel. Apple is a big
company, one designer stole an icon (with or without realizing it was
trademarked), and nobody caught it. Big deal. Not.

If Apple refuses to acknowledge its error, and refuses to fix (however it's
required to), _then_ it'll be a big f'ing deal, for anyone other than the
anti-Apple zealots.

------
Flow
Sure, it looks quite like the railway clock. I'd prefer Apple to pay for the
rights and do an exact copy. As it is now there are several details that look
not alike and in a sense not aesthetically pleasing.

------
runjake
I'm as hopeful that Apple gets served its own medicine like the next guy, but
this seems more like a common sense design rather than a copy.

In fact, I once made a mechanical clock that looks virtually identical to the
iOS example and this was years before iOS was unleashed on the world. It's
just thick lines and thin lines thrown together. The hands aren't even tapered
like the Mondaine's.

This seems like a desperate grasp from Apple critics, why don't they go after
more obvious examples, like the pull-down menus they borrowed from Android?

Heck, I don't even see all this "stealing" to and fro as a bad thing, but
rather paradigms moving forward.

Edit: some people pointed out the red line, which this color-deficient, sleep-
deprived person failed to notice. But still, doesn't this fall more under
homage than rip off?

~~~
ars
It's the red circle on the second hand that clinches it.

It's not identical though, the minute markers are thinner, and the minute hand
doesn't reach all the way to the rim.

That said, how many way are there already to design a clock?

~~~
alexqgb
I've had three Mondain watches in the last 15 years (I really like them) and I
had to compare side by side to see the differences. They're there, but they're
subtle, and even to someone who is very familiar with the design, they're not
immediately apparent.

So yeah, blatant rip. For folks pointing out the Braun parallels, it's
important to remember that Braun never made an iPod. Apple transposed design
cues from one long-since discontinued product to a different product in a
different time. It was an inspired move and I applaud them for it.

With this clock, they're transposing nothing, they're adding nothing, they're
improving nothing. This is just unlicensed copying. It's a credit to their
good taste, perhaps, but not their sense of ethics.

------
malyk
Is there a clock, different than the clock app, that I'm not aware of? I'm
using the iOS 6 Gold Master and the icon my clock app does not look like that
at all.

------
dmbaggett
As staunch upholders of intellectual property rights, Apple, I'm sure, greatly
appreciates this oversight being pointed out to them.

------
olalonde
Poe's law is really shining in this comment thread. "Any sufficiently advanced
parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

------
waynesutton
They can battle it out in court and the blogs I'm just glad Apple finally
decide to ship their own clock app for the iPad.

------
tisme
If a couple of rounded corners and some UI tweaks are worth $3B then I wonder
what the design of a clock is worth.

------
SquareWheel
Speaking as an Apple hater: so what? Apple should be allowed to use said
design, as should anybody.

~~~
sukuriant
you must have missed that whole Apple v Samsung fiasco that just finished

~~~
SquareWheel
I followed it closely. "Design" patents in general are ridiculous.

~~~
sukuriant
They are. It's just ironic this is happening.

Honestly, I'm expecting these things to happen more and more as people look at
Apple with a finer-tooth'd comb, what with the general view of Apple gradually
diminishing.

------
sathishmanohar
w00t! Billion dollar lawsuit! Seriously how else can a watch company make big
bucks today?

~~~
raverbashing
Ask Rolex, Breitling, Hublot, they all seem to be running out of cash

Apple's profits are very down-to-earth compared to some of these brands

------
mun2mun
Nope, Apple took Swiss clock as base design optimized it for better iPad UI
experience.

------
unkoman
Keep sucking apples dick, guys.

------
manojlds
Funny that the photo credit mentions Mondaine AND Apple :)

------
zerostar07
what if the swiss rail system installs screens or develops tablets for its
passengers one day that show the iconic clock? Could Apple sue them then?

------
EternalFury
Translate that for me: L'Arroseur arrosé.

------
zalew
They should go thermonuclear war on this.

------
sampsonjs
Talent imitates, genius steals!

------
hxf148
Really? Get bent.

------
ritratt
haha...FUCK U TOO APPLE!

------
its_so_on
if we're being generous, maybe apple just thought that it was a Swiss train
station clock nobody cares about (which, in a way, is what the clock actually
was), which their team kind of just came across (maybe in switzerland!) and
thought they liked it despite its being unremarkable and uncelebrated, like
"found art". oops.

this just goes to show that good art really is timeless. it's not about bs
marketing hyping up art that isn't art without the hype. as apple just found
out, it's still art without the hype.

~~~
SeoxyS
For what it's worth, I know for a fact that the head of Graphic Design @ Apple
is Swiss.

------
zdw
They also copied the look of Braun's classic calculator and tape deck designs
for their calculator and podcasts apps.

Is this particular instance copying? Yes.

Will it affect the popularity of said designs in a positive manner? Probably.

Will they sell more of their $400 clock (see:
[http://www.momastore.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDi...](http://www.momastore.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay_-
Large-Swiss-Railway-Clock_10451_10001_54429_-1_26663_11551)) as a result? I'd
guess at yes.

So, in any case, they sell more clocks, or if they litigate and win, they get
a license fee out of Apple. So getting copied by Apple has a downside where?

~~~
beedogs
So when Apple infringes on someone else's trademarked products, the affected
party should be _grateful_? Because it _might_ be "free" advertising?

Are you out of your mind?

What's with the sycophantic comments all over this story excusing Apple's
terrible behavior?

~~~
ghshephard
There is a difference between "homage" and "rip-off"

Look at all of the designs that Dieter Rams did, that Apple used in their own
products:

[http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-
secr...](http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-
apples-future)

And look what Dieter things about this:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-R...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-
Rams-Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html)

Can you not see the difference between what Apple is doing and what Samsung is
doing?

~~~
gergles
This clock is a "slavish copy" of the Swiss clock, down to the weight of each
element and the presence of the red hand. You can't possibly say it's an
'homage' any more than running the Mona Lisa through a color Xerox would be.

Edit: It appears to be merely "almost" identical to the Swiss clock and
instead is a slavish copy of the _Austrian_ clock, given the weight of the
minute hash marks.

~~~
ghshephard
The point is, Apple makes no bones about it being a carbon copy. If you asked
them, they would throw their hands up in frustration and say, _that is the
entire point_.

They absolutely intended for anyone who see's this clock to immediately
recognize they were paying tribute to the original.

Traditionally, designers have appreciated these little nods of respect.

I'm not sure what happened with SBB, but I'm sure it will play out to their
benefit.

In the case of Samsung, Apple _wanted_ Samsung to pull their product from the
market. In the case of SBB, it would be slap to their face if Apple just
decided to yank their clock off the iPad.

Hopefully it will all work out for the best - Apple will license the likeness
for some moderate fee, and everyone walks away happy.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original_ //

s/were paying tribute to/copied.

Surely the point is that an ethical business seeks license from those they
choose to copy before doing so. It is not at all respectful to copy verbatim
without seeking any form of warrant or approval.

