×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

136 comments

And iPhone 5 will look like (-1, Troll)

stashslash (2210906) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278790)

Like this [tinyurl.com] , its rumored

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278812)

not gonna click it to find out, but I'd be surprised if parent's link wasn't goatse

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278830)

About the same, yeah. Don't click it

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278836)

It appears you would be correct sir. Why oh why do I always forget..

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278846)

Man, the trolls must be off their game or something, because this one's REALLY obvious.

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (0)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279018)

Somebody probably outsourced his trolling to India.

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (0)

stashplot (2210964) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279052)

You might laugh, but my troll attack on this page got me a record number of hits
(320 hits) and absolute record (since I started trolling) of hits per minute (32 hits).
If you don't believe, look here (its not goatse, I promise) : http://picpaste.com/pics/screenshot3-oJKhyeVp.1306674249.png [picpaste.com]

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279344)

People really allow redirectors to run scripts on their machines? You have discovered many idiots. Congratulations!

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281790)

I mean that's kinda... nothing. Are you really that excited over something so stupid?

You could get more people putting goatse stickers on bus stops in busy sections of town.

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281036)

Well was dumb and clicked, but I don't know if the URL is f'ed up, ad-block in Chrome messed with it or what.. but it came back with an invalid URL that shows this in the address bar:

data:text/html;base64,PHRpdGxlPllvdXIgdXJsIGFudGktc2hvcnRlbmVyIHdvcmtzPzwvdGl0bGU+PGltZyBzcmM9aHR0cDovL2JpdC5seS9lakdqdEsgaGVpZ2h0PTEwMCUgLz4K

Re:And iPhone 5 will look like (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281038)

(Edit to add to earlier comment)

I guess a WIN for Chrome!

This webpage is not available
The webpage at data:text/html;base64,PHRpdGxlPllvdXIgdXJsIGFudGktc2hvcnRlbmVyIHdvcmtzPzwvdGl0bGU+PGltZyBzcmM9aHR0cDovL2JpdC5seS9lakdqdEsgaGVpZ2h0PTEwMCUgLz4K might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
Error 311 (net::ERR_UNSAFE_REDIRECT): Unknown error.

Yes I remember... (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278822)

"I show you mine if you show me yours."

they never did.

Re:Yes I remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279072)

scumbag...

And iPhone will look like... (-1, Troll)

stashplotter (2210948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278872)

Like this [tinyurl.com] , its rumored

Re:And iPhone will look like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278886)

goatse warning! I'm still recovering.

Re:And iPhone will look like... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278898)

Turn on TinyUrl previews. It saves lives.

Re:And iPhone will look like... (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279190)

And to proxies, so trolls won't see your IP.

Re:And iPhone will look like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279476)

Here's a thought: don't click on links that use url shorteners. This isn't friggin twitter, they can paste a full url.

Delaying Release (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278878)

I found the comment that this may delay their release the most interesting. If true, perhaps this will stop Apple and others from abusing the legal system in the future. Smart move on Samsung's part.

Re:Delaying Release (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278922)

I believe that's only half the reason.

The other half would be so Apple doesn't look at their designs, go "Oh snap that looks good" then rip it off for their next device. This way they both get to have the fun of being both sides of this assfuck.

Re:Delaying Release (4, Informative)

carou (88501) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278974)

Except that's completely incorrect. I know the link says "asked to see some of Samsung's future devices" but that doesn't mean the request was granted. Rather:

She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.

Apple will get no opportunity to rip off Samsung's pre-release designs. It's such a shame that the facts are so much less interesting than your speculation.

Re:Delaying Release (2)

solkimera (1319365) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279608)

still, having only apple's counsel look at stuff gives them unfair advantage. I mean, they can make whatever claim they want about what they had planned for future devices.

Re:Delaying Release (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279798)

Any communication (however illegal) of the counsel to Apple is privileged, and so I wouldn't trust them anymore than Samsung does.

Re:Delaying Release (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280024)

Not all communication with counsel is considered privilege. Defying a court order or planning a crime, for example. For example a client may tell his counsel whether he or she committed a crime and that is considered privilege. A client telling counsel about future crimes he or she will commit is not privileged. Sanctions can be imposed on counsel that violate a judge's order including disbarment.

Re:Delaying Release (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279554)

That's right, Apple got to where it is today by ripping of Samsung's designs.

Re:Delaying Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36281294)

No they got where they are from ripping off the Xerox Altos....

Re:Delaying Release (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281582)

The same way Microsoft got where they are today by ripping off Digital Research I guess? (MS-DOS being a cheap "clone" of CP/M)

Anyway:

"Eventually, a stripped-down version of the Alto, the Xerox Star 8010 Document Processor, was released to the public in 1981 for US$17,000. The Star had some differences from the Alto, most significantly the ability to overlap windows was removed as it was thought too confusing for the general public. Instead, the Star used tiled windows. As significant as the Star's release was, it was too little and too late for Xerox, who had by that time lost most of its top researchers to other companies." (A History of the GUI [arstechnica.com] )

Usually you rip off" market successes, not failures. Apple saved GUI from the incompetent hands of Xerox is a more correct interpretation of history.

Re:Delaying Release (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282446)

The same way Microsoft got where they are today by ripping off Digital Research I guess?

Yes, the same way. Why is it that Apple fanbois just can't admit Apple has done something wrong? Apple fanbois are like this are the sort of tossers who would dob everyone else in just so they wouldn't have to take the blame themselves. Quick, someone's bashing Apple, direct them to something Microsoft did, that will make it all ok even though MS has nothing to do with this discussion in any way, shape or form. Standard Apple fanboi behavior.

Wholesale copy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278882)

>Now, Samsung is requesting to view Apple's upcoming devices such as the iPad 3 and iPhone 5

Hey hey, why wait until they' re released before doing a wholesale copy when you can
get to see it months before?

Is that an iPhone in that ad, or a Samsung? I'm really finding it hard to tell
these days.

Re:Wholesale copy (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282458)

Is that an iPhone in that ad, or a Samsung? I'm really finding it hard to tell these days.

isn't the presence of branding a dead giveaway?

Relax, I be a doctor (2, Insightful)

TheyTookOurJobs (1930780) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278888)

While I completely believe Apple is paranoid enough to believe that everyone is stealing their generic unappealing design, it's frightening that a judge can tell Samsung to pull down it's pants and cough.

The Life Cycle of Non-Apple Products (0, Flamebait)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278942)

TheyTookOurJobs: While I completely believe Apple is paranoid enough to believe that everyone is stealing their generic unappealing design,

I don't know if you'd noticed or not, but a lot of people really do try to steal Apple's designs, or at least their thunder. It's the step between (5) observe with mounting horror and a hint of awakening greed how well the Apple product is doing in its newly impacted niche and (7) boast proudly that Apple's not the only one to have a design in that niche.

Incidentally, (4) is "complain how generic and obvious the Apple product is, and decry how it can't possibly amount to anything in its selected niche." Whether (4) is an honest reaction or a premeditated defense against claims of (6) is left as an exercise for the reader, and probably best judged on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Relax, I be a doctor (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278992)

I mean generic sure but "unappealing" is a bit ridiculous being that they're the most popular single devices out there.

But hey, you're just trolling and I have fed you. Congrats.

Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278960)

... But isn't it apple suing Samsung for copying their design?

I can see why a judge wants Apple to see the next Samsung models, but I fail to understand why would he ever grant Samsung permission to check future Apple releases.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278978)

To provide assurance to Samsung that Apple won't steal their tech for this next gen. If Samsung can see what Apple is up to currently and then Apple changes direction after seeing Samsung's stuff, Samsung can go after them.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280354)

Like Samsung had any tech worth stealing.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279122)

Once Apple sued Samsung, Samsung sued Apple for the same reasons.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279288)

Suppose Samsung tells their designers to make a shiny white tablet with rounded corners, since customers seem to like that sort of thing. Now if Samsung lawyers can get hold of competing Apple designs, they can make sure that their own designs don't look too similar. This way Apple can be assured that the Samsung devices won't be identical.

Now Apple might contend that such an arrangement is unfair to them. But doing it the other way around, with Samsung sending their designs to Apple for approval, is even more unfair to Samsung, since then Samsung loses valuable development time every time they have to wait for Apple to respond.

What goes around... (1, Troll)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36278982)

...comes around. This should prevent Apple from taking Samsung's designs and running with them. Although I still fail to see how or why one should be allowed to patent a design. It's not like it's super secret if it's on the outside...

Re:What goes around... (0)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279080)

Apple has requested examples of already released Samsung products. Samsung is asking for not yet released Apple products.

It's clear who is trying to run with whose designs.

Re:What goes around... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279112)

From the summary, where a convenient link to more information is provided for your use: "Apple even asked to see some of Samsung's future devices."

You don't understand what "future" means, do you?

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279156)

One of the Samsung devices is 'future' in the sense that it's not yet available for consumer purchase. However, all of them have long been announced and demonstrated. The products definitively exist. What Samsung is asking from Apple is based on pure (albeit reasonable) speculation. They even say "iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, or some other name" because they're just guessing.

Re:What goes around... (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280196)

In the actual story, there are details about which products Apple wants to see. Samsung's products are already released or going to be released in the near future. They have been shown and demonstrated like at CES 2011 in February.

  • Galaxy S2: released in South Korea April 28, 2011
  • Galaxy 8.9: early summer 2011
  • Galaxy 10.1: release date June 8, 2011
  • Infuse 4G; released May 15, 2011
  • Droid Charge: released May 14, 2011

Apple, however, has not announced nor shown their upcoming products. The public does not even know the name of upcoming products. This has been Apple's way of doing things for years. When Apple announces or shows their products, they will announce when they will be available and usually within weeks. The only exception I can remember is the original iPhone which had a six month lead; but the reason Apple stated that it announced so early was that it was going to be hard to keep it a secret much longer as they had to apply for FCC licensing. Apple applying for FCC licensing for a cell phone when they didn't make cell phones was going to be an public indication.

The question one could ask is why Apple needs the design when the product is already released. The answer is rather simple: Samsung, as the manufacturer, is the only one that can provide official designs to Apple. Getting the designs from anyone else is not official.

Re:What goes around... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280456)

announced != released

Re:What goes around... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280604)

Samsung announced the release date . With a release date of sometime in the next few months or wekks, it is highly likely that the designs have been finalized for manufacturing. Which is the point of why Apple want to see these not yet released products.

Re:What goes around... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279146)

It's clear who is trying to run with whose designs.

And get their asses slapped with another expensive lawsuit? I wouldn't be so sure about that...

I've seen both iPhones and Galaxy S-s. They may be similar, but that's because they're both phones, with a tried and true shape. I can see Apple taking a cue or two from the Galaxy S UI design, or maybe even the Nexus S (if that's included in the suit, it has a really nice apps list), but unless the iPhone 5 makes some groundbreaking changes in the UI, or is something like banana-shaped, I don't see how Samsung could benefit from it...
Now if someone was copying the LG Flutter, I'd say it has grounds.

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279572)

I'm so tired of that argument, when the first thing reviews mention, often in the friggin title, is how much these phone like an iPhone then it goes somewhat beyond "well they're both phones." Case in point :

First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design [wired.com]
Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity [associatedcontent.com]
Samsung Galaxy S Review [slashgear.com] : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS"

Re:What goes around... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279806)

This is all stupid. I've had over a dozen people in a day ask me if I'm carrying an iPad when I have a Dell Streak. The five inch Dell Streak no less. User idiocy is not evidence.

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36281324)

These are reviewers, they have somewhat more expertise. I love the way people are going all coy about it now when it's plainly clear that Samsung was ripping off the design to everyone with eyes in his head as those headlines plainly demonstrate. I don't think that's a bad thing, I rather like the iPhone designs past and present but pretending it just ain't so makes you look like one of those kooky global warming deniers.

Re:What goes around... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279154)

Apparently you're so much of a sycophantic Apple fanboy that you can't even read a 2 sentence summary without twisting its meaning to fit your faggoty dogma. Leave the thinking to those better equipped for it, just you keep gulping down on Job's cock.

Re:What goes around... (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279280)

Maybe because most of Apple's target group is no what we colloquially refer to as "computer people"? As in (dramatization follows);

(Granma): Hey 'ya all, I got me one of thems fancy Apples!

(Uncle Bob): Lemme see .. Pert neer, but not plumb, that there ain't no Apples! Looks darn lot like one, though.

(Granma): Ya recon? And that know-it-all on the store didn't speak up at all- next month ah'm in town, a gonna havta open up a can a' whoopass on that know-it-all boah in the store- some Mr rocket surgeon he thinks he is!

Re:What goes around... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279316)

I'd say Gramma's response would be more along the lines of "Well, if it works, what do I care...", being "not computer people". And it's not like Apple or anyone goes specifically after 'shady dealers', who would be most likely to copy and sell knock-offs. Other companies phones have solid tech behind them, even if they do look close (which kinda follows from being a phone, therefore sort of restricted in its shape and design).

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279626)

You are stupid if you thought that was clever.

Re:What goes around... (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279680)

If you think that patenting has to do with keeping things secret, then you obviously have no clue about the reason we have patents. Patents are designed to fully disclose an invention; actually a patent is supposed to be written in a way that someone skilled in the art can build the machine described in the patent. This to promote the disclosure of inventions, and with that to increase common knowledge. The reward for this full disclosure is a time-limited monopoly on the use of that invention.

A design patent is different: it means that no-one is allowed to use the same design in their products. How same is same... that's what's now in court. Of course no secrets involved here, just protection of one's intellectual property (a design patent doesn't have an expiry data afaik - I'm not sure about that point), in a fashion similar to trademarks (a trademark is basically protected by using it, for unlimited time, protection ends when you stop using it - registration is optional though highly recommended).

Don't let them bully you, Samsung. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36278986)

Apple needs to shut their arrogant, greedy mouths. You don't own the touchscreen, stainless steel frame, the "App Store", etc. Apple's cooperate policy shuts down innovation that is even roughly similar to their generic design and takes away freedom in their own products i.e. DRM.

mentioned before but.... (2)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279000)

Apple and Samsung employees/execs/lawyers are not viewing eachother's designs. The review is done by a supposedly unbiased third-party who will simply look for any infringement. No one from either camp gets to stare at what im starting to believe is some sort of circuit board porn [wazdat.com]

Re:mentioned before but.... (1)

AmericanInKiev (453362) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279604)

Access is access.
(paid) "Outside counsel" is compliant counsel - especially for apple which is the kind of customer no lawyer can afford to offend.

So apple should have no objections to exposing its future designs to "outside" counsel of Samsung's choosing - in south korea of course.

Re:mentioned before but.... (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281594)

Funny, those circuit schematic pull-out diagrams are actually fairly common in military technical manuals. Most even fold out both ways!

and the case rests. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279238)

are Samsung rally that dumb to copy Apple even in court?

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279248)

So Apple is suing samsung because Samsungs products are as close as possible to full copies of Apples products, they get to see the future samsung products to verify if they are indeed iPhone 4 and Ipad 2 copies. Now Samsung is saying "We want to see iPhone 5, so we can errrrrr, not copy it better" ?

Meanwhile in the UK and Korea (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279420)

One Samsung model is outselling the iPhone 4 [unwiredview.com]

Samsung and Asus now look like the biggest threats to Apple, in phones and tablets respectively.

Re:Meanwhile in the UK and Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279896)

LOL..A year old phone design is finally being outsold by a just-released product.

Amazing...

Re:Meanwhile in the UK and Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36281388)

LOL..A year old phone design is finally being outsold by a just-released product.

Amazing...

In two countries at least. And for the UK they need to count the 16 and 32 GB iPhone 4s as two different modells.

Re:Meanwhile in the UK and Korea (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279910)

In S. Korea, Android marketshare March 2010: 3% March 2011: 60% - not kidding!

Re:Meanwhile in the UK and Korea (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280238)

If you actually read the link you provided, it clearly says "for this week." Statistically you'd need a much larger sample size than 1 to make a general claim for trends. I remember there were a few weeks when the Zune outsold the iPod. Those were the weeks when retailers like Amazon heavily discounted them to get rid of inventory as they had not been selling well. No one would say that over the history of the Zune that it outsold the iPod.

I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (3, Insightful)

cheros (223479) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279454)

Watch Johanna Blakely talk at TED [youtube.com] about the fashion industry.

It's got a number of rather interesting points:

- designers take creative input from anywhere
- logos on goods are the only thing you cannot copy
- the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway, something the music and film industry might have to start thinking about (Microsoft understands this better - it's what they use for initial market penetration).

Worth watching, whatever side of the IP fence you live..

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#36279706)

- the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway

While (mostly) true, there is a good reason for fashion designers to crack down on copied goods: brand dilution. In Hong Kong it appears almost all women are walking around with the typical LV-styled hand bags. Standard in brown with golden logo printed all over. But of course most of those are cheap mainland-made rip-offs bought across the border or on local street markets.

Those that spend a lot of money for the real thing do not stand out anymore. There is no reason to buy such a bag anymore, and the reason for a fashion-conscious person to buy some designer stuff is to have something unique. Why else pay the big bucks?

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280194)

Clearly you do not understand fashion, or do in an autistic way.

The reason to but designer stuff is not to have something unique, it's to be able to be an asshole to those that didn't and make them jealous.

The purest form of joy comes from saying "Oh is that a Loui Vuitton? How much did you pay for it? Oh it's a knockoff? well, mine's real. You cheap whore."

Re:knockoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280782)

That is very true. The rich see designer items as a way to show off how rich they are to the common folk. They have been doing this for a very long time.

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (3, Interesting)

cheros (223479) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281602)

Not to stir things up, but it would only be fair to observe that would be the viewpoint of those that cannot afford it..

There are generally two reasons why people prefer a certain fashion brand: the type you mentioned (and yes, there's a lot of them about) and those who simply like the values and design the brand brings.

Let me take a simple example. If you take the trouble to walk into an Armani store you can see two types of clothing: "LOOK AT ME" fashion which has the brand plastered all over it in the biggest, high contrast characters possible. That's the wannabe clothing, and the type most often knocked off.

However, you will also find clothing that is simply well made, decently cut along the line of the cloth and sits well the moment you put it on. That stuff isn't as expensive as you seem to think - especially if you buy a bit more classic (easiest for a man) you can have such stuff for years, provided you don't change shape :-). Because it's expertly cut it also looks good.

This is generally the case with the better brands - as long as you don't go super exclusive a decent brand will have a degree of managed quality. Which make you buy depends on what design you like - I don't have a favourite, I just buy what I like.

I also buy crap if I can't be bothered - that generally lasts twice before I bring it to a textile collection point :-)

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280296)

You're confusing things like fashion with things like textile technology, manufacturing processes, etc. What a haut couture dres looks like, and how a particularly complex fabric dyeing technique works are two different things.

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280442)

I've extensively studied the physics behind this.

There's only one "side". The rest is mental delusion and greed. In essence, the whole concept of ownership, is made up. I'll explain:

Obviously, it's not a physical law. But it's also not simply a rule of society. So what is it?

It once was simple: You own what you control. Period. That's it. Same thing. (Or more exact: You own something as much as you control it.)
Makes sense with land, and other physical things. Even extends to people. (The one making the rules [=controls you] or making the information that makes you assume certain rules, owns you [to that amount] right now. So don't think that ever went away.)

But humans create a lot of information too. And the thing with information is: It doesn't adhere to the same physical laws. As it exists in information space. So:
- You can not delete information. You can only forget where it was, or overwrite it. (Physical object have to adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.)
- You can hence not move information. You can only make copies. Then you can forget or overwrite the original. But it is not obligatory. In fact, the default is to not "delete" it.
- Taking a copy does not only not harm the original. It doesn't influence it *at all*. (Other than with physical objects.) And because of that, you cannot take away ("steal") information.
- Making a copy is practically free (minute processing and storage "cost")

This all together results in the most important rules:
- Information, that is passed on, cannot be controlled anymore. Unless you control its physical containers.
- And information that isn't passed on to anybody, cannot even be proven to exist. (Since you do that, by passing [at least parts of it] on.)

But people got the nasty idea, of controlling (owning) ideas/information anyway. Which, of course, doesn't work, ever, unless you control the minds of the people you pass it on to.
So that's what they did. The old "You can have my body, but you'll never have my mind!" would be overturned, once and for all. And since it was the same thing, that churches/gurus/marketing/PR/politics/etc used since forever -- to make you think it would be good for you, and was your idea all along anyway -- it was easy to implement.

You will notice, how far off from any physical reality we're here. Basically it's all make-believe. And if you believe in it, it's real (for you).

Conclusion: It's all about dominance.
Why? You know why. The usual suspects. Money, power, etc.

And if you thought until now, that I'm talking about creative people, artists and inventors here.... No... It were certain "investors". And the original creators were ripped off and abused by them since the invention of the delusion of the "ownership" of information.

As I said: Mental delusion. And greed.

P.S.: I, for one, deny the existence of the delusion. There is no "IP". I can do that because I will always know, that physical laws disagree with it. Will you know? Will you remember, when they tell you it exists, a dozen times a day?

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (1)

Miktor (1285622) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280786)

You should already know that there is only one side of the IP fence on slashdot...

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36281194)

- logos on goods are the only thing you cannot copy

That's actually not true. You are confusing "trademark" for "trade dress".

A trade dress infringement is similar to a trademark, except it's where a product copies a product's distinctive aesthetic design. In the car and fashion industry, these lawsuits are a dime a dozen, and they're a walk over court case. If you sell a car or handbag that looks like some other popular car/handbag, then you are guilty and your product will be taken off the market.

I don't remember ever seeing a lawsuit of this type in the IT industry, but Apple has a fairly strong case. Their portable hardware and software are visually unlike anything that's ever shipped before and they have distinctive mindshare among consumers, and it's trivial to release hardware/software that looks nothing like theirs (microsoft/goolge/palm have made their own look and feel with their mobile operating systems, and every other smartphone manufacturer to date (except for dodgy ones in china) has managed to create distinctive hardware). Why does samsung's new hadware/software mimic apple's products in so many tiny irrelevant ways?

Note that trade dress does not cover functionality. Anything at all that's functional (screen size, form factor, etc) is explicitly not covered by trade dress and copying is encouraged if anything (assuming there are no patents involved). This is about aesthetic design decisions like why did you go for a silver ring around a black face just like apple's existing product, why did you specifically choose the same white-on-green colour for the phone app icon. Why did you deliberately dumb down android's superior home screen, to make it have exactly the same layout as Apple's one (4x4 grid of rounded rectangle icons that swipe from left to right, and 4x1 grid at the bottom that doesn't swipe).

I'm not sure if settlements exist, it could be more like a trademark infringement where you are confusing customers and therefore your product cannot be sold at all, until you push out a new revision that doesn't look anything like anyone else's existing product.

Re:I have a simple answer to IP questions.. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281314)

Well, the place where fashion and visual art differ from music, movies, games, and books, is that there is prestige with owning an original, which is a problem for your final point. Genuine brands and original works are reasonably rare, reasonably valuable, and a status symbol, which is what motivates people to buy them, instead of knock-offs and prints. With music, movies, games, and books, there is less prestige with associated with a "genuine" copy. There's no corresponding affirmation of status, no sense of rarity to motivate people to actually buy the copies. This effect would have to somehow be applied to all other art forms in order for this plan to work.

I suppose it is possible. One way would be for the artist to sell the copyright. This could be done either to an individual or syndicate. Each person gets the prestige of truly owning an album, movie, game, or book, as though it were created just for them. Perhaps it's only an asset on paper, but then again, so choosing a genuine Louis Vuitton over the knock-off that looks almost identical. My biggest concern would be that the people who do buy the copyrights would, in order to regain some finances, or to maintain the prestige, would fail to distribute the works freely. They may turn out to be worse than publishers are today.

Another way, based on a popular suggestion here on slashdot, would possibly be to ride of the prestige of live performances and merchandising. The benefits of this is that such prestige already exists. People do both these things to show that they are true fans, and there's more than a little money to be had because of it. However, this also has big problem: it only adequately covers one form of entertainment. It's a perfectly viable solution for musicians to try, and supposing that paper books continue surviving, I suppose authors could try a similar tactic with book signings, but no such options exist for games and cinema.

So yeah, those are the suggestions I can think of. Feel free to jump in and add in your own.

Call the wammmbulence! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36279986)

Apple needs to put their big boy pants on and get back to their own R&D. Can't stand iPhones, but lovin' my Samsung Infuse. Seriously, I think a bit of competition is good for the Market if you ask me :)

Samsung believes iPhone5 could be Nexus S copy (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280032)

This article points out that Apple is in a tough spot and cutting production and that the iPhone5 is rumored to have curved glass like the Nexus S.

http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/cell-phones/samsung-believes-iphone-5-could-be-nexus-s-copy/12060.html [infosyncworld.com]

Also interesting speculation that Samsung could keep its new ultra high resolution display screens away from Apple for a period of time to keep them behind the curve.

These are interesting times...

What a load of BS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280344)

You do realize that the Nexus S is considered an INFERIOR product and even a DOWNGRADE from the original HTC built NexusOne.

Why would Apple want to copy a crappy product?

Re:What a load of BS (1)

amnesia_tc (1983602) | more than 2 years ago | (#36281202)

Why would Apple want to copy a crappy product?

I don't really know, they're pretty good at making crappy products without Samsung's help.

Collusion? (1)

android.dreamer (1948792) | more than 2 years ago | (#36280478)

Is it possible that these two companies are using this lawsuit, that may go nowhere, to collude on pricing, by comparing technology? Just a thought.

User privacy and user security first please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36280930)

I for one will abstain from aquiring a fancy pants tablet until the technology, security concerns and a proper attitude towards privacy and user security are championed for the sake of securing solely user benefits and not having manufacturers dump mediocre products onto the market.

Hrm, I want an A4 sized, double paged, ebook reader for pdf files, not an iPad.

Hurt their case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36281024)

I honestly hope this only angers the judge. What the fuck kind of argument is "I need to see their future un-anounced product to make sure I don't copy the trade dress of their current product?"

Or are they honestly saying they're afraid apple will sue them for releasing a product that could be confused with some future never before announced apple product? If that were to happen, samsung would be the one suing apple for trade dress infringement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...