Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by Karunamon on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:39AM (#4728055)

Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by JasonFruit on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:49AM (#4728109)

I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by Karunamon on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:55AM (#4728142)

I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by mkr-hn on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:03PM (#4728182)

It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by javajosh on Thursday November 01, 2012 @03:05PM (#4729147)

Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.

[ Parent | on HN ]