

Who cares if Samsung copied Apple? - hype7
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/08/who_cares_if_samsung_copied_ap.html

======
vibrunazo
People have to stop thinking about which side is more fun to "cheer" to and
start thinking about what's in your best interest as a consumer. Everyone
copies everyone [1]. Apple copied a lot of features from Android [2] and
improved upon them. Samsung copied a lot of stuff from Apple and improved them
to levels Apple had never gone to before. [3] As the author of the article
shows. Copying doesn't stop innovation. It has always been like this with any
innovation. There's a reason Newton and Einstein said "I can only see so far
because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants". Any innovation made by humans
is inspired by hundreds of years of history.

For us as consumers, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day we get better
products from this. We gain from innovation and competition. If Apple didn't
copy Android, your iPhone would be worse. If Samsung didn't copy Apple, the
best selling phone in the market would be worse. And every consumer would
lose.

If Apple wins this. It would be bad for every smartphone user on the planet.
Including iPhone users. If you love your phone and tech innovation. You should
be hoping Samsung wins, even if you have an iPhone.

[1] <http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/>

[2] [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-
of-f...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/apple-copies-a-bunch-of-features-
from-android-calls-it-ios5-updated/2295)

[3] [http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-
note-10-1-...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-
note-10-1-review/)

~~~
roc
Competition is great.

But there's a point where the "copying" that we as consumers like and benefit
from crosses a line and becomes a shameless "knock-off" that we as consumers
truly do _not_ benefit from.

It's not at all clear that Samsung has crossed that line, but the line exists
none-the-less and we as consumers benefit from there being a legal process to
determine when the line has been crossed and penalties for those who cross it.

And in recognizing that we need such a line and a legal system to determine
whether it's been crossed, we must allow that fuzzy cases such as these are
inevitable. No matter how we might reform the system.

~~~
rednukleus
There is nothing in any of these patent cases that even _approaches_ the
"shameless knock-off" territory.

There are products coming out of China that are counterfits, or very close to
existing products - and they should be banned.

You would have to be both blind and stupid to not be able to tell the
difference between any two Android and iOS phones.

~~~
fkdjs
A shameless knock off copies _everything_. A shameless rolex copies everything
from a rolex. Rolex doesn't copy anything from their knockoffs. There has to
be one way copying to classify a product as a knockoff. Instead, Apple has
copied many features from android, so it's not a case of samsung / android
being knockoff products. If anything, consumers have benefited from copying!
Everyone complained about iOS notifications, then they copied android
notifications. And consumers benefited. The fact that we are even having this
discussion is nauseating. It's painfully obvious what the outcome should be in
terms of what's best for consumers. A rich ecosystem which combines copying
with innovation.

~~~
adrianbg
... a rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation and with less
money pointlessly wasted on lawyers.

------
simonster
There's a New York Times article from yesterday making the opposite case:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-
app...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/technology/samsung-and-apple-fail-
to-agree-out-of-court.html)

The Times article makes the argument that, while Apple didn't stop innovating
because Samsung was copying them, Samsung stopped innovating because producing
cheap Apple knockoffs was easier than producing unique products with unique
features. I don't know if I believe it, but Allworth's claim that copying
doesn't hurt the market is certainly not a slam dunk.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
If you look at the evidence provided during the court case it's pretty obvious
that's not true. Samsung created their own unique designs for everything, and
only after benchmarking made changes to improve on them (because at the time
samsung was much worse at design). If they 'copied', I would expect the
earlier prototypes to look more like the iPhone, but the earlier prototypes
look less like the iphone.

Also you must not know anything about the electronics industry if you find
Samsung un-innovative. Aside from all innovative things that are plain to see
in their devices, you also have more objective rankings like patent grants:

[http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730d...](http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730da6d970b-pi)

Apple is not even on the list.

~~~
siglesias
_If they 'copied', I would expect the earlier prototypes to look more like the
iPhone, but the earlier prototypes look less like the iphone._

Can you explain why what the earlier prototypes look like is relevant to
whether they copied Apple in the final product?

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Because the parent I was responding to talks about how much Samsung is
innovating. The important thing is that their process is geared towards doing
their own work and innovating on their own.

How much the end result looks like another product has no relevance in my mind
because results and similarities could've been achieved independently, and the
most important elements of the look and feel were, eg F700.

~~~
bryne
I don't think you understand what the word "copying" means.

It's certainly possible that similar end results can be achieved independently
- that is what a court is determining, in this case.

------
sjwright
If you take the assumption that Microsoft copied Apple, as this author has, I
think the opposite conclusion can be drawn, that Apple very quickly lost in
the marketplace and was circling the drain in 1997. There's a very real
possibility that the iPhone will end up a marginal player within a few years,
if Android maintains its trajectory.

In my opinion though, the big difference between Apple v Microsoft and Apple v
Samsung is that Microsoft at least combined Apple's innovations with many
innovations of their own, and Microsoft never tried to imitate Apple's trade
dress.

You can't boil the Apple v Samsung conundrum down to a single paragraph, but I
don't see much reason to defend Samsung -- all the serious innovation on the
Android side is coming from Google, not Samsung. Samsung can make perfectly
awesome devices without also spreading a bit of KIRF jelly on some products.

~~~
saturdaysaint
The article also casually throws out the iPod as an example where copying
didn't hurt, when Apple was actually intensely protective of the main
interface element, the click-wheel. Successfully defending that made also-ran
mp3 players seem somewhat alien/weird. If anything, the success of the iPod
emboldened them to continue this strategy.

~~~
sjwright
The iPod won because competitors took too long to take the iPod seriously, and
then too long to identify why it was successful.

By the time competitors managed to make competitive products, Apple had the
iTunes Store and perhaps the most brilliant and long-lasting marketing
campaign of a technology product, ever.

------
hboon
I care. I care that if a company can copy another's innovation and (1) kill
the innovative company (2) make innovative companies not willing to invest
resources - time, money and talent - because these resources turn into free
R&D for other companies.

I haven't given deep thought into my stance on patents in general, but to me,
design - industrial design, visual design, software interaction design - takes
a lot of effort and talent to get right. Implementing is easier. You can often
throw bodies, hardware, money and fix implementation.

Most of the time, it is very easy to copy great design. That doesn't look
right.

And I speak this as a developer.

Edit: added a line.

~~~
vegardx
Put 10 developers in a locked room and they would eventually come up with the
same idea. Just because you thought of it first does not give you exclusive
rights on elementary things. Also, you probably copied someone at some point
anyway. Ideas does not simply just appear in your mind, you are influenced by
everything around you.

~~~
bryne
It's very easy (and cheap) to say that _after_ the idea has been born.

The idea of someone profiting from the trademark or patent of an idea because
they 'thought of it first' may be abhorrent to you, but it's the way this
patent system works. I think it's also important to distinguish between
companies that think of ideas, then implement them, thus innovating in
product; and companies who simply patent the ideas and use them to sue. We
call those "patent trolls".

------
rm999
I don't think the article rigorously defends its position. Just because a
company innovates after being copied does not mean it is innovating because it
was copied. The article doesn't give one example of a situation where a
company was motivated by being copied (or even a solid reason _why_ they would
be motivated by that).

I'll explain the correlation I see: products that are bound to be very
profitable are bound to be copied, so of course a company like Apple will
develop something like the iphone despite potential copycats.

~~~
hype7
Sorry, I don't see the article saying that a company innovates because it was
copied. What it says is that being copied doesn't stop innovation — which is
the whole premise of the IP system (if I can't recoup my R&D costs, then I
can't afford to innovate).

~~~
rm999
You're right, the article argues that copying doesn't stifle innovation, but
it goes beyond this and argues companies innovate because they are being
copied. For example, this quote argues a correlation between copying and
innovation, and hints at a causation:

>Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all. If
anything, it only seemed to accelerate it. Apple wasn't able to rest on its
laurels; to return to profitability, and to take the mantle they hold today of
one of the technology industry's largest companies, they had to innovate as
fast as they could.

I'd be the first to agree that an open, competitive market is a good thing.
But the author is explicitly discussing "copying", which usually involves an
infringement of IP a company considers novel and important to their
competitive advantage. I wouldn't say the author's point is completely without
merit, there's a balance at play. If the balance goes too anti-patent,
companies would be better off investing very little in innovation and a lot in
copy-cat products that can undercut true innovators. If Apple never existed,
Samsung may today be selling 2008-era phones for 500 dollars. That's the risk.

~~~
hype7
If that's true, given that Apple felt it was being copied by Microsoft in the
mid-1990s, took them to court, and lost — I'm not sure how much more "anti-
patent" you can get for Apple than losing a case on its core product — then
why did they bother to invest in creating all that stuff that's got them to
where they did?

And, if an "anti-patent" causes companies not to invest, then how come, five
years after the release of the iPhone, with it still not clear whether patents
are being upheld or not (but not looking good in Apple's favor:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-
ap...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-
over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html) ) then Apple continues to invest in the
iPhone?

------
insickness
I get tired of hearing these black and white arguments about this case. He
says who cares if Samsung copied Apple? What if Samsung created a product that
looked indistinguishable from an iphone in every single way? That would be a
problem.

So the question is, where do we draw the line? It's ludicrous for Apple to try
to patent a rectangle, and that's what people are angry about. But somewhere
in between there's a middle ground, and that's what these court cases are
trying to find.

~~~
turbogt
@insickness, i agree with you that patent of shape is weird. but, is iphone
and galaxy really indistinguishable? they are different size, operating
system, logos and even buttons are different. only similarity i can find is
that they are rounded rectangle and color black when they are turned off and
if you look from far distance they both looks like tv remote control,,,

~~~
stordoff
Ultimately, I'd agree that Apple are being far too aggressive in this, but IMO
the similarities go further than you describe. The Galaxy Ace [1] (I assume
the court cases are at least in part about the Ace?) looks very similar to the
iPhone and is practically the same size. My Ace is stored in an iPhone case,
and it fits almost perfectly.

It also ships with a "Samsung Keypad" as the default input device. As far as I
can tell, all this does is make the keyboard look more like the one on the
iPhone. Compare the Samsung keyboard [2] with the iPhone keyboard [3].

As I said earlier, I personally think that Apple are pursuing this further
than I would like, but in some cases it seems (to me at least) that the
similarities are more than incidental.

[1] Example image: <http://i.imgur.com/ZEW45.png>

[2] Samsung keyboard: <http://i.imgur.com/WxFt4.jpg>

[3] iPhone keyboard: <http://i.imgur.com/xSVdZ.jpg>

------
askopruss
I do not approve pixel-per-pixel copies, but if one takes ideas from another
and improves upon them, one has my side. All those patent wars and things is
just a game invented for those who do not innovate for others, but instead
innovate for themselves.

------
rtkwe
In short? The companies and their lawyers. Litigation is becoming more about
hampering your competition and protecting yourself than it is about consumers
and things which are 'wrong.'

------
robot
copying doesn't matter for consumers and improvising is better for innovation,
both true facts. The point missed is that companies need to build unfair
advantages to get benefits of their investments. Maybe the blind consumer does
not care whether a company builds a great product or goes bankrupt, but
preventing copying is one of the measures that lets a company remain
competitive, and bring out more products for the long term good of the
consumer.

------
RexRollman
Apple.

------
zalew
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0>

~~~
turbogt
Thanks for the link, that was really good presentation. I hope everybody watch
it.

------
kenster07
Is there not a sense of how absolutely broken the patent system is? Apple is
playing a game that should not exist.

------
clientbiller
Apple.

------
nu2ycombinator
Apple

------
ekyo777
"Who cares if Samsung" made a pale and horrid replica of what "Apple" is
buying screens from them for.

Apple is probably one of Samsung's biggest clients.

I think patents shouldn't exists but... there's no point in making a copy of
something else if you can't improve it... and Samsung couldn't even make the
device decent.

~~~
olalonde
> and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent.

That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung
smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone
by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results
<http://www.osnews.com/story/26228>).

~~~
slantyyz
>> >> and Samsung couldn't even make the device decent.

>> That's your personal opinion, not the marketplace's opinion. Samsung
smartphones are actually quite successful (they currently outsell the iPhone
by a factor of ~2x according to latest financial results
<http://www.osnews.com/story/26228>).

Selling well doesn't make any device decent, it only makes it popular.

Getting decent reviews (which Samsung's current phones do get) supports the
notion that the Samsung phones are decent.

~~~
hoi
decent reviews is a small sample subset of reviewers. A better metric would be
returns to the store and loyalty. Likewise sales is also capped by
distribution and sales channels. Otherwise you could argue that the original
iPhone was much more inferior to its competitors in 2007.

