

Ask HN: Why has'nt Samsung used the argument that Apple copied Braun? - qatalo

I am curious. Apple has been obviously been "inspired by" Braun in many if not all their products. How could Samsung use this fact in the case thats currently going on? and if if they cant, Why?<p>Exhibit: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
======
simonh
Braun didn't make computers, or phones, or tablets.

If you made a computer mouse inspired by the shape of a Porsche 911 you
probably wouldn't have any problems, but if you made a car modelled after a
Porsche 911 you certainly would.

Apple hasn't argued that rectangular phones are it's exclusive domain, however
it's case is characterised by some people. It's saying that the many, many
similarities are so numerous and so dominate the design of some Samsung
products that it believes some consumers would have to actually expend
deliberate effort to tell those products apart from Apple products, and that
this is going too far.

They're basically arguing that if there is a line that it's possible to cross
when making your product look too similar to someone else's, then Samsung has
crossed that line. You could disagree. You could think that there is a line
and Samsung didn't cross it, or that there is no line and it's OK to
completely duplicate another company's products so that yours are actually
identical. Are you in either of those two camps? If so, which.

This also relates to the 'Poor artists copy, great artists steal' idea. The
point isn't that great artists are better at making their stuff look like
someone else's, or something. That's a popular misinterpretation. The point is
that great artists take the idea and make it their own. They produce an
expression of that idea that is so 'theirs' that they now own it artistically.

------
TorbjornLunde
Because Apple has been inspired by them, not out-right copied them.

Apple take ideas from Braun and put them into different contexts (products).
Samsung have taken Apple’s ideas and put them into the exact same context (or
so the argument goes).

Another reason: The Braun designs that Apple have been inspired by are decades
old by this point. Most of the Braun products don’t have these designs anymore
(Aside: IMHO I think they current design is inferior to a lot of their older
stuff.)

EDIT: Removed something that I don’t think was accurate.

~~~
qatalo
Vast majority of the "copies" that Apple is accusing Samsung of doing in the
exhibits Apple has shown so far are in the UI.

I do not think Apple has grounds in accusing Samsung of Hardware "copying".
Design is nothing but organised copying and perhaps a little improv as well.

"Apple take ideas from Braun and put them into different contexts" -> that
nailed it.

------
rprasad
The court did not allow Samsung to use any prior evidence showing that Apple
copied others. This was a major point of contention that led to Samsung
releasing various photos to the media about two weeks ago in an attempt to
poison the media and the public (and possibly the jury pool).

Many have claimed that this is because Judge Koh is heavily biased against
Samsung, or for Apple. But really, it was Samsung's fault for fucking with the
discovery process. At the federal level, the discovery process is the most
important part of the case. It is sacrosanct. By ignoring their obligations in
discovery, Samsung effectively killed their case because the Judge then
disallowed the use of any evidence that Samsung did not make available during
discovery, including, for example, pretty much all of the evidence that Apple
copied others.

Lesson learned: if you have a bullet-proof case, make damn sure to honor your
discovery obligations in federal courts or your bullet-proof case becomes an
untempered-glass case.

~~~
qatalo
"The court did not allow Samsung to use any prior evidence showing that Apple
copied others"

wow. but they all know dont they. system of law that accommodates and
encourages process over problem is what needs to be eradicated.

