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.
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.
I can't downvote you. But I think that this is a prime example of the snarky comments that people are complaining about that are hurting HN's comment quality.
Please let the Swiss speak for themselves as to whether they are honored or offended by this. There's nothing more annoying than having somebody else tell you how to feel about something.
For my part (and I'm Swiss, for what it's worth) I appreciate the homage; though I fully understand SBB/CFF's need to protect the trademark. These clocks in Switzerland are iconic and immediately associated with the SBB/CFF. Much like Apple needs to protect its trademark & trade dress in order to remain full owner, SBB/CFF must protect its design.
Serious question, if the Railway company was a government institution when the design was released, is the design not in the public domain?
Nowadays, it seems they're quasi-governmental, but back then I think they were strictly a national org. It'd be like DARPA trying to get royalties on the internet or something similar. I could be wrong in this line of thinking, of course.
hahaha, I'm sure every company loves to have a good double-edged sword. Honestly, I think it's different enough, but in the same way I think Samsung products are different enough. Take you pick which way you want it Apple...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
To be fair, that wasn't a case of plagiarism. The app wasn't rejected because it "copied" their icon, but because it used a familiar icon with a different meaning, potentially confusing users. They are just following good UI guidelines, although overzealously.
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.
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.
And I would love to see anyone defend that position in court. "Your honor, it was patented but was it a 'real patent?', I mean look at the offices of the company that owns it. It's a small company, not very famous and their coffee tastes bland"..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samsung has invested a ton of money in developing the Galaxy brand through billboards, TV ads and so on. While you can definitely argue that many of their UI elements bear a striking resemblance to Apple's, they take every opportunity to reinforce their brand name.
you make an accusation that I have seen no evidence of in the press. Are you possessed of information demonstrating intent on Samsung's part to confuse buyers?
Apple's diluting and commoditizing SBB'a brand. It's not about iPhone being confused with Swiss train station clocks. It's about Swiss train station clocks being confused with iPhone's clock app.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
[+] [-] mladenkovacevic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cushman|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] brink|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeoxyS|13 years ago|reply
For my part (and I'm Swiss, for what it's worth) I appreciate the homage; though I fully understand SBB/CFF's need to protect the trademark. These clocks in Switzerland are iconic and immediately associated with the SBB/CFF. Much like Apple needs to protect its trademark & trade dress in order to remain full owner, SBB/CFF must protect its design.
[+] [-] achughes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|13 years ago|reply
Nowadays, it seems they're quasi-governmental, but back then I think they were strictly a national org. It'd be like DARPA trying to get royalties on the internet or something similar. I could be wrong in this line of thinking, of course.
[+] [-] splamco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] batista|13 years ago|reply
1) Apple didn't copy the design to make it's own clock rip-off. It is for a very tiny part of their original product.
2) Apple didn't copy the design to sell more iPhones.
3) The design is famous. It's not like Apple sneakily copied it thinking no one will notice.
4) It's a common "click of the eye" gesture to design-savvy public, like their basing their podcast app to classic 60's design, etc.
[+] [-] halfwit|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wickedchicken|13 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JSGraef|13 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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... or the Swiss original http://www.sbbshop.ch/pub/index.php?page=goods&c=8&l...
[+] [-] sschueller|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mckoss|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymouz|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvhh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamaal|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
That was the sensible position to take before courts started to award billions of dollars in damages for design infringements.
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SODaniel|13 years ago|reply
Made bed, meet company laying in you.
[+] [-] mxfh|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scriptproof|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SODaniel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmars|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] simonh|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ender7|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.
[+] [-] varunsrin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaphar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abcd_f|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmarin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotharbot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poub|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SODaniel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephcooney|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poub|13 years ago|reply
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.