or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft' - Page 2

post #41 of 141
I love it when Ive gives interviews because he makes the haters go ballistic. 1biggrin.gif
post #42 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. 

 

Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.

 

As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:

 

 

The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung. 

 

That's unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

post #43 of 141
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
That's unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

 

Just about makes you wish North Korea would get their act together and start reunification already. :grumble:

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #44 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.

I've heard it said that Apple entered the market just as capacitive touchscreen technology was beginning to mature, so that they were the first to take advantage of the multitouch interface enabled by such hardware. I think Samsung and others would have eventually produced capacitive touchscreen devices, but their first showing would not have been as strong as Apple's in terms of overall polish, especially if they would have had to roll their own OS. Even now, their software skills seem mostly limited to developing UI skins, with Google doing most of the backend heavy lifting.

post #45 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

I've heard it said that Apple entered the market just as capacitive touchscreen technology was beginning to mature, so that they were the first to take advantage of the multitouch interface enabled by such hardware. I think Samsung and others would have eventually produced capacitive touchscreen devices, but their first showing would not have been as strong as Apple's in terms of overall polish, especially if they would have had to roll their own OS. Even now, their software skills seem mostly limited to developing UI skins, with Google doing most of the backend heavy lifting.

Also consider Synaptic's touchpads. Even today with a decade(?) of use by other PC OEMs only Apple's touchpads seem to work great.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

Well I don't see a real problem with millions of knock off iPhones in the world. I know they exist but who ever sees one.

 

So you don't know anyone who owns a Samsung phone?

 

Quote:
Maybe if the copying never happened, Apple would have 200 billion in the bank and Ive would have so much money that even his great grandchildren would never run out. Never enough for some. Poor Jony and his terrible life struggle. 

 

Because all that money should go to Samsung's poor investors instead?  At least Jony actually puts in hours at a job creating things of value.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #47 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Just about makes you wish North Korea would get their act together and start reunification already. :grumble:

 

Instead of the countless deaths that would create, I would much rather see a very inspired hacker target the finances of Samsung's upper echelon. A nice, tailored virus that would track down every single ill-gotten won and transfer it untraceably to a series of highly-deserving charities.

post #48 of 141

When I say knock off I mean intent to copy exactly. A fake iPhone, not a similar design like a Samsung. Where do you draw the line. Only the first car can have four wheels?

post #49 of 141
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post

Instead of the countless deaths that would create, I would much rather see a very inspired hacker target the finances of Samsung's upper echelon. A nice, tailored virus that would track down every single ill-gotten won and transfer it untraceably to a series of highly-deserving charities.

 

While he’s in there, have him release all of Samsung’s internal documents to the press.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #50 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post
 

When I say knock off I mean intent to copy exactly. A fake iPhone, not a similar design like a Samsung. Where do you draw the line. Only the first car can have four wheels?

 

The initial set of Samsung's capacitive touchscreen phones which came out shortly after the iPhone were pretty much knockoffs.  It's only after losing a patent suit and a few more years to finally come up with their own designs, that they now wouldn't be considered as such.  This is mostly what Jony is referring to.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #51 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.

 

If you really want "honesty" then here it goes.

 

The whole droid ecosystem is based on stolen parts, it's like putting together a car based on a truck load of stolen parts then marketing the crap out of it:

- Android was stolen by Google from Sun now Oracle Java - court case ongoing

- Hardware designs and UI stolen from Apple - 2 convictions - more pending in court

 

On principle alone I am always amazed at the number of people that jump up to blow Samsung's trumpet.

IMO the only other company making a genuine effort to innovate on its own is probably BlackBerry.

 

For this reason, if I were ever to move from iPhone my choice would probably be BlackBerry.

post #52 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


Samsung to pay Dyson Technology over patent dispute
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKLD64172920090213?irpc=932

 

@freedivertx: that particular article is from 2009 and is not related in anyway to the current lawsuit (ie, steering mech patent) Dyson recently DROPPED.

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/17/dyson-samsung-lawsuit:

 

Last August Dyson issued proceedings against Samsung for a patented appliance steering mechanism on its MotoSync range, which it claimed the Korean manufacturer was infringing. When Samsung's lawyers presented prior art, which it maintained belonged to the company, Dyson was forced to withdraw the action that had been filed. It could not pursue the claim due to loopholes in the patent system.

 

Dyson's version of triple cyclone tech was patented in the 90's and has since expired -- it's an old tech that used by pretty much everyone. 

post #53 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.

Sammy is a thief. Apple spent 100s or 1000s of man hours and took a lot a risk. Sammy just copied with little risk (patent infringement not withstanding)
post #54 of 141
pedromartins, current Samsung phones may no longer look exactly like the iPhones, but that came about only because of the recent court cases. Think about this: would Samsung phones look the way they do today, if the iPhone did not come along? We know that it took Samsung 200 days to replicate what Apple accomplished only after several years of hard work. You will not appreciate the pain if you have not created truly epic products before. If you are not convinced take note: carefully observe current Samsung Gear offerings, and how they will look like a few months after Apple debuts its rumored iWatch. Then compare how long (plus the cost and struggle) it took Apple to come up with such a product and how long it takes their competitors to rush knockoffs to the market. If we just allow anyone to copy stuff, what would be the point in anyone busting their butts to come up with truly great products?
post #55 of 141

I always find Jonny's interviews fascinating. You really get to feel the deepness of his beliefs, passionate, and dedication. He takes this shit seriously. I'm confident we'll continue to see incredible things from him going forward. 

post #56 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

That's unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

 

Don't forget their blackberry ripoff back in the day, which even copied small, meaningless details. They also had the nerve to call it the "blackjack". There are thousands of other examples. The company really is shameless in this, but it's gotten them enormous success. The one thing I don't understand are the people who cheer for them and want them to sink the companies that they've ripped off. 

 

post #57 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

the iPhone... I use it, and I use it well. But it's just a phone. There's nothing intimate with it.
And sometimes, it's even complicated to do easy stuff with it!

Nothing could be further from the truth.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #58 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

The thing that most people forget is that at the time of the iPhone's launch the other mobile phone makers were so far ahead of Apple in all aspects of the market. It's not like these latter day copycats were struggling backwater startups trying to bring inexpensive communication devices to the masses or the sake of benefitting humanity. They were the big megacorps with a stranglehold over the entire market and the media and used to throwing their weight around. The bold upstart new kid on the block with the crazy new idea about what a mobile device could be was Apple. Prior to its launch many pundits thought it was going to be a folly for Apple. If you want to talk about abuse of power - take a look at who held all the cards and who went on to screw their biggest customer with blatant copycat designs. Think about how you would feel if someone you'd been supporting with your business suddenly turned around and tried to take you down because they coveted what you have and had the means and technology to do so. That's sleazy on a massive scale and it's only because of the immense value in the brains of Jony Ive and his crew that the bullies were not able to prevail. Sometimes brains does beat brawn.

I don't know what it was that turned so many good people against what is one of the best examples of American Ingenuity and icons of industry to ever come along. Was it the snarky Mac vs. PC ads? Was it Apple's refusal to get into a race to the bottom on price and commoditization? Do people really hate winners even when they rose from being the underdog? Impossible to say. But what is not impossible to say is that Samsung and others were clearly caught copying Apple designs. Even a caveman can see that fact. Unfortunately Apple did not provide a way for these copycats to "save face" and move on so the battles will continue unabated. It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. They just can't get past the fact that they were caught with their hands in Apple's cookie jar and until they settle this ego driven conflict in their own mind, make good on their crimes, and decide to move forward on their own they will always be operating under a dark cloud and their best attempts to "one up" Apple with things like the Galaxy Gear will make them look like posers. They have the wherewithal and talent to make it work on their own but for some reason they choose not to move on.

Excellent post. Except: do Samsung have the wherewithal and talent? Looking at their stab at a smartwatch, I would say no.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #59 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia have been making mobile phones for a long time, so by the same token it would be silly to think a newcomer like Apple can ship smartphones without violating some Motorola or Nokia or Ericsson patent pertaining to mobile phones. 

 

That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.

post #60 of 141
Sometimes when I see how bright and shimmery Jony's eyes look, I imagine that he's testing a pair of Apple contact lenses that let him project his visual thoughts onto any object he's staring at.
post #61 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

 

Android is a stolen OS.  Apple should spend every penny of its $150,000,000,000.00 in the bank righting this wrong.

post #62 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

That was a Picasso quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Stealing here means "making something your own," which means taking something and reinterpreting it in a personal, original way such as Picasso taking an ordinary building and drawing it Cubist style. 

 

It doesn't mean making a knock-off of the market leader and selling millions of them.

 

An example of this is how the iPad Smart Cover is very similar to a Japanese-designed bathtub cover. Apple possibly took inspiration from this design and incorporated it into a completely different application. Their implementation was so powerful that more people associate this design with Apple than with the obscure bathtub cover, hence they "made it their own."

 

 

 

 

In contrast, if this were Samsung they would have simply marketed their own bathtub cover clone to compete against the original.

post #63 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

I agree, Samsung's ability to innovate and create is laughable. But they are able to bring the designs that they acquire through whatever means to market with impressive speed and at impressive quantities, which is why Apple keeps going back to them for parts and components even though Samsung returns the favor by stabbing them in the back. And the front. Anyone who feels "sorry" for Samsung in their battles with Apple has an extremely distorted perception of right and wrong. I give Samsung credit where it's due, but they'll always be a second rate company as long as they continue to steal other people's creativity and intellectual property. I believe they CAN do right because they have the right pieces in other areas. Why they choose not to do right is what baffles me.

Why does anyone choose not do to right? I believe that those who lead Samsung have acted with deliberate evil intent, and that is the path they have chosen to go down. It's one way of making money.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #64 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That was a Picasso quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Stealing here means "making something your own," which means taking something and reinterpreting it in a personal, original way such as Picasso taking an ordinary building and drawing it Cubist style. 




It doesn't mean making a knock-off of the market leader and selling millions of them.

I agree, although I don't believe that 'Picasso' and 'great artist' belong in the same sentence. Original, maybe; great, no.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #65 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonteponte View Post
 

 

Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it. It took it's sweet time but I think they are currently the closest to competing with Apple on similar terms.

 

And it seems to be paying off for them too...

Sony was once worth nearly $150.  Now it is worth less than $20.  I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Sony is doing well.

post #66 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post


Parochial and familiar is good enough for Americans. The rest of the world is willing to make a bit more of a quality decision for their earned income. So, McMansions are big - and energy inefficient; supermarket chains rely on sugar; fashion is defined by Kohls and Walmart; and the Super Bowl provides 12 minutes of actual competitive sport in a 4-hour telecast.

Our nation's conformity wouldn't feel so oppressive if it weren't so boring.

Apple does better in America than it does in the rest of the world.  I'm not sure what point you are making.  Are you saying that Android is "a bit more of a quality decision"?

post #67 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.

Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

The pu
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.

That is a philosophy not original to you that was brought about by some snobbish economist about 30 years ago. It was not written into law, and corporations are free to do any number of things not related to making a profit. Courts have held that shareholders of publicly traded companies have the remedy of selling their stock if they don't like management.

Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity.  It makes you a good person.  Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.

post #69 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity.  It makes you a good person.  Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.

Cut the crap!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 of 141

error

post #71 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity.  It makes you a good person.  Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.

Um....no. It doesn't
post #72 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/17/samsung-countersues-dyson-over-vacuum-copycat-claims/

If the article is correct Dyson subsequently dropped the infringement claims. Samsung didn't let it go tho and filed their own suit alleging false "copycat" claims from Dyson. Strange, strange. . .

 

Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.

 

"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/13/dysontechnology-idUKLD64172920090213

 

You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums. Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation. 

post #73 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Cut the crap!

He's been outed as a possible fake Apple fan. Block and be done with him.
post #74 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicoil View Post
 

That's the real reasoning behind everything apple does, if you think that it's anything to do with having products that look cool then you've been suckered by the sales hype

 

Wow, thanks for opening my eyes. And here all these years I thought Apple was a charity..

 

I really don't understand posts like yours. Do you think there's a single person on the planet that doesn't understand that Apple is a business? Yes, we realize that. But every business employs different tactics, philosophies, and methodologies in order to create their products which they'd like you to buy, and not all these philosophies are equal. Some of us understand and appreciate that. Of course Apple wants to see product. But they have a different way of getting there than most other tech companies, and there are certain things they would never, ever resort to, even if it resulted in slightly more profit.

 

And as a designer myself, I KNOW that the reason that Ive pores over details for months is not because he's thinking about how many more unit sales he could get. Apple products are full of nearly imperceptible details that the average user will NEVER notice. The reason why I sometimes have toruble sleeping at night after sending a final design is never about how much I charged for it- its always debating whether I could have made it better, and arguing with myself about every minute detail, from the colors, to the letter kerning, to the font weights. Ive is correct when he says it can be tortuous. If one actually cares, it is. I'm not sure how thats so difficult for people like you to understand. 


Edited by Slurpy - 3/17/14 at 10:01am
post #75 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.

"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/13/dysontechnology-idUKLD64172920090213

You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums.
Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a 
company
 with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation. 
I'm not certain you understand the case you've cited. It was not an infringement case. It had to do with Samsung trying to patent tech that Dyson claims to have already patented. The "award" was Dyson having their legal expenses covered. Your original reply was in regard to Samsung's vacuums infringing on Dyson patents, implying that Samsung had done so.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.

 

Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)

post #77 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)

Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/17/14 at 10:17am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 141
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
He's been outed as a possible fake Apple fan. Block and be done with him.


Here’s my question. We know this. MARVIN has confirmed it. Why isn’t he banned? Why aren’t all his posts deleted? 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #79 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?

Yes, the Samsung Galaxy S wanted to be a copy of the 3GS in term of general look and feel.

But you cannot pretend that a successfull design trend is not followed by competitors. If you look at LCD TVs from a few meters, they are absolutely identical. The same was for a lot of consumer electronic products, way before the iPhone introduction. The value added of an iPhone is not in the rounded corners rectangular shape, nor in the slide-to-unlock concept. Those aspects are just weapons to be used in lawsuits. Ask yourself: do you buy iPhone because of rounded corners rectangular shape and slide-to-unlock concept?
post #80 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)

Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?

Heh heh... classic GG response: deflect the question, meander, and obfuscate.

 

freediverx, we all know you got the answer to your question!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft'