> or thought you were buying an actual Rolex

He said Knock-off, not counterfeit. A knock-off looks like the original but does not falsely advertise itself as actually being the original.

I guess this is just semantics, but look where this redirects to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off

"Counterfeit consumer goods, commonly called knock-offs, are counterfeit or imitation products offered for sale."

I've seen that too, but it's sloppy writing.

Knock-off: A copy, but doesn't use the name of the original.

Counterfeit: A copy, that uses the name of the original.

Fake: Doesn't work properly, or is copied only partly (for example using brass instead of gold), but claims to be original.

Imitation: Uses cheaper materials, but is upfront about it.

There are two attributes: Deception and Accuracy. Each combination of those two gets a name.

I think this (intentionally or not) points out some of why people want Apple to beat Samsung. Not just win, but beat Samsung. It ties in precisely with what the grandparent is saying.

People want to choose sides and, for whatever god-forsaken reason, there are still people who haven't used it since 2.0 convinced that Android is massively inferior, and thus they see this as Apple beating a knock-off.

But it's not, and anyone whose seen Samsung's sales figures knows that.

I agree.

And I think another issue here is that it isn't the case that Samsung attempts to con people into thinking they're buying an Apple device. Even if you get up in arms saying that Samsung/Android copied certain features from Apple, it would an entirely separate can of worms if people regularly bought Samsung devices, thinking they were buying an Apple one.