[jkn]

I think part of the reason why many people are rooting for Samsung here, is that in this community, in the field of competitive practices, copying is not frowned upon as much as litigating. There's no doubt that Samsung copied from Apple but blocking a whole product due to some parts being copied (like a green phone icon according to the page you linked) is arguably worse than the copying itself.

After all, copying (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the creation process. Sure, Samsung was not very creative in the pieces they took from Apple, but in the end these elements are a small part of the product.

[Samuel_Michon]

“copying (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the creation process.”

The original quote, to put in context what Jobs was referring to:

“One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.” —Philip Massinger

http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/good-poets-borro...

NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot.

[sjwright]

Jobs would say copying. Stealing is reserved for those who recognise the artistry behind the idea and integrating it into the very soul of the new work; copying is the duplication of an idea without more than superficial regard for its true meaning or purpose.

[Jacqued]

I don't think a business leader, no matter how charismatic, is the most well suited person to talk about copying, since his business probably holds a lot of patents, which may or may be justified. In this case, the level of absurdity we reached is quite astonishing - the judge pretty much said : yes, Apple owns the black rectangle, but Samsung failed to do a proper black rectangle so they are not infringing.

By any means, this obsessive scorn of copying is something that must be relativised : it only really exists in the western world after the 18th century. Most cultures that exist in other times/spaces tend to see no moral issue in copying, and even dignify it when done properly

[briandear]

Which is why Samsung was so stupid to have copied anything. They didn't need to.