I'd like to hear some thoughts on what you all think this quote means and if it holds any truth at all. I was recently discussing this with a fellow designer, Mike DeLeon. This is my first official post on Branch as well!

I think what the quote was supposed to mean is that by copying, you aren't adding value to something. You are simply taking something and cloning it. To steal something infers that you took the idea and made it your own. Stealing money would be transferring the value of that money to you and making it your own.

Good artists copy - Copying good artistic works
Great artists steal - Taking an artistic work and modifying it to make it your own and hopefully making it better in the process

And so may this relate to the... oh I don't know.. the Samsung/Apple trials? Is it ok for Samsung to "steal" the iPhone's user interface and implement it into their own products? And is it alright for Apple to "copy" Android's notification pull down menu? What would be defined as copying or stealing in these cases?

I don't think it matters what would be defined as copying or stealing. Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, all of them "copy" or "steal" from each other all the time. It would be hard to progress technologically if they didn't.

This quote which is attributed to Picasso should not be used to define legal terms, morals, or ethics. In my opinion, intellectual property law is handled in a very absurd way, and needs to be "reinvented" itself.

I'd second that! But who's to say what a general idea or experience is an intellectual property or not? From what I've learned, all things have been predefined. And therefore a product is always a product, because it was established as a product long ago.. Like a phone- a phone is a device used for communication, but also many more things. Although, long ago it was only used for phone calls. From economics, having the ability to copy a product is good for consumers. But is copying an idea morally ok? I still disagree to a point. It's ok for somebody to exercise the products feature list, but a dead on copy is not ok. I think I'm going no where on this one haha.

Let's ask this another way. Is it right to copy something if you don't profit from it? For instance, if Samsung, copied the iPhone and gave it away to anyone who couldn't afford a phone (taking economics out of the equation here), would it be morally right?

Using a similar example, replace the iPhone with the Cure for Cancer. Does that make a difference?

I would say it's like copying somebody's homework- one does the work of thinking it out, the other benefits from it. How could that be morally right? If you could do the work equally, why not? I'd make the claim, no. Maybe it's for the purpose., like you said- cancer. I've heard lots of stuff that people HAVE found a cure- just the issue of mass producing it lies within legalities. Who gets credit? Who makes profit? Either way, somebody would be losing. If the cure for cancer has been found, and somebody copies it, then gives it for free, that originally company would last. And the second company could predict from that. Thus, having the opportunity to raise their price. Nothing can be free. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Economics is everywhere! You may not run nor hide from it!