PDA

View Full Version : Apple Calls Samsung's Request to See iPhone 5 and iPad 3 an 'Attempt to Harass'




MacRumors
Jun 14, 2011, 08:54 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apple-calls-to-samsungs-request-attempt-to-harass/)


Late last month, Samsung attempted to escalate its patent dispute with Apple by requesting to see (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/28/samsungs-lawyers-demand-to-see-iphone-and-ipad-3/) Apple's next-generation iPhone and iPad models, ostensibly to help it defend itself against Apple's charges of copying and other infringement. The request was made after Apple requested and was granted access to unreleased Samsung hardware (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/24/apple-granted-access-to-unreleased-samsung-hardware-in-patent-suit/), although that hardware had already been extensively advertised and demoed by Samsung.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/samsung_logo.jpg


FOSS Patents now reports (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-feels-harassed-by-copyist.html) that Apple has filed a response to Samsung's request, referring to the move as an "improper attempt to harass" Apple by requesting to see secret hardware that bears no relevance to Apple's claims against Samsung. From Apple's filing:Samsung's Motion to Compel is an improper attempt to harass Apple by demanding production of extremely sensitive trade secrets that have no relevance to Apple's likelihood of success on its infringement claims or to a preliminary injunction motion. Apple made a compelling showing in its motion to expedite discovery that Apple needs samples of products that Samsung has already announced, distributed, and described, so that Apple can evaluate whether to file a preliminary injunction motion against those products, which look strikingly similar to the distinctive trade dress of Apple's current products. Samsung has made no such showing about Apple's future products. Therefore, Samsung's Motion to Compel should be denied.Samsung has until this Friday to produce the samples of unreleased hardware to Apple, after which time Apple will decide whether to proceed with a request for a preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling the new products, a move that could give Apple significant leverage in extracting a settlement from Samsung. This Friday should also see a ruling on whether Samsung will be permitted access to Apple's next-generation hardware.

Article Link: Apple Calls Samsung's Request to See iPhone 5 and iPad 3 an 'Attempt to Harass' (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apple-calls-to-samsungs-request-attempt-to-harass/)



alent1234
Jun 14, 2011, 08:56 AM
really?
shocking

i was expecting apple to invite a few samsung engineers to their labs to discuss everything in detail and send them back with demo units

gpat
Jun 14, 2011, 08:58 AM
Well, they're mostly right.

Samsumac
Jun 14, 2011, 09:00 AM
Weak response... Samsung's gambit is a good one...

chirpie
Jun 14, 2011, 09:00 AM
Really, I gotta side with Apple.

Samsung had already shown their products in public no less. I don't think the two are equivalent.

Jerome Morrow
Jun 14, 2011, 09:05 AM
Weak response... Samsung's gambit is a good one...

Sarcasm on or off?

macnisse
Jun 14, 2011, 09:05 AM
Is Samsungs products really THAT similar to Apples... :confused:

ghostlyorb
Jun 14, 2011, 09:05 AM
Samsung just got greedy and thought they could get the first unofficial sneak peak of new devices! ha.. fail

Is Samsungs products really THAT similar to Apples... :confused:

yeah... a lot. the comparison pics are alike in many ways, (my opinion of course!)

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 09:06 AM
really?
shocking

i was expecting apple to invite a few samsung engineers to their labs to discuss everything in detail and send them back with demo units

And I was expecting Apple to not feel so vulnerable to such a request since its not like the public would have seen it. Its not like Samsung said we need you to show off your phone to the world before your ready. :rolleyes:

Ah the fangirls must be all up in arms on this one.

miles01110
Jun 14, 2011, 09:07 AM
i was expecting apple to invite a few samsung engineers to their labs to discuss everything in detail and send them back with demo units

Engineers are not involved on either side. Just lawyers.

swarmster
Jun 14, 2011, 09:07 AM
This was pretty blatant. Apple's suing them for violating its patents. Apple requests to see recently announced/released products to see if it needs to include them in the suit.

Samsung needs to see Apple's products because...???

It's completely irrelevant?

Unless they really do base their product designs on what comes out of Apple? There are easier ways to admit guilt.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 09:07 AM
Is Samsungs products really THAT similar to Apples... :confused:

MacRumors - Conflicted

Blogs/Serious Blogs - Yes: Samsungs Bad

Engadget comment section - **** Apple.

Go figure.

sined13
Jun 14, 2011, 09:08 AM
Holy double standards Batman!

ABernardoJr
Jun 14, 2011, 09:09 AM
Why a company (Samsung) would request to see unreleased products of a company they're accused of copying (Apple) is beyond me. :confused: I tend to think Apple is right for calling Samsung's "request" unwarranted.

miles01110
Jun 14, 2011, 09:11 AM
Why a company (Samsung) would request to see unreleased products of a company they're accused of copying (Apple) is beyond me. :confused: I tend to think Apple is right for calling Samsung's "request" unwarranted.

If you actually read the news item, the reasoning is spelled out in the first sentence.

Late last month, Samsung attempted to escalate its patent dispute with Apple by requesting to see Apple's next-generation iPhone and iPad models, ostensibly to help it defend itself against Apple's charges of copying and other infringement.

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 09:12 AM
yeah... a lot. the comparison pics are alike in many ways, (my opinion of course!)

Everything is similar its made for humans by humans have you seen all the android phones they all look similar only one does not and that's blackberry's.

Tablets are the same, from the front they look similar but I don't see Sony and Samsung going bat **** crazy over it. I am all for Apples secret fixation but a bit over the top on this one. Way to much on the side of conspiracy paranoia on Apples part.

Maybe next Samsung need to put on the phone and adds THIS IS NOT AN IPHONE so Apple will relax. :o

Apple wants something for less that would make more sense for all this.

Small White Car
Jun 14, 2011, 09:12 AM
Ah, yes, because if someone steals from you and you tell the cops to check their house for your TV set then the thief has the right to ask the cops to search your house too.

Because, you know, fairsees.

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 09:13 AM
Holy double standards Batman!

The Joker has a hand it all this, twist the truth to suit his demented mind, Robin.:D

rmwebs
Jun 14, 2011, 09:14 AM
yeah... a lot. the comparison pics are alike in many ways, (my opinion of course!)

Try using the two side by side ;) Whilst it cant be denied that the lock screen and home screens are near identical, everything else is almost stock Android (I.E Not even remotely similar to what iOS has).

At this point, Apple are lucky Google aren't demanding a copy of iOS 5 to see if the stole the notification system :D

IMO neither company deserves to see each others products. At the end of the day, one runs Android the other iOS, two VERY different operating systems with almost zero similarities.

Apple potentially ripped the iOS home screen design from the LG Prada but you don't see them complaining.

Lesser Evets
Jun 14, 2011, 09:14 AM
This was a 5-minute ROFL.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 09:14 AM
Oh no! A legal story that links to a blog written by someone without a legal background and commented on here by posters who will pick and choose sides based on interests and not the law. What could possibly go wrong . . .

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 09:15 AM
If you actually read the news item, the reasoning is spelled out in the first sentence.

So a company requests for future devices?

So now every company should call for future products so that they don't infringe on any of the IP. Sure.

erzhik
Jun 14, 2011, 09:17 AM
So when Apple demands to see prototypes, it's ok. But when Samsung requests exactly the same thing, it's called harassment? Interesting...

HelveticaNeue
Jun 14, 2011, 09:17 AM
Apple potentially ripped the iOS home screen design from the LG Prada but you don't see them complaining.

Please delete your comment before LG sees it, launches a lawsuit and we have to sit through more of the litigation articles.

mklaman
Jun 14, 2011, 09:18 AM
i love apple, but this was a straight up genius move by samsung to "play games" with apple.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 09:18 AM
So when Apple demands to see prototypes, it's ok. But when Samsung requests exactly the same thing, it's called harassment? Interesting...

Do you people even read the news article?

chagla
Jun 14, 2011, 09:18 AM
wait, so apple can request to see samsung products but samsung cant' see apples?

hey..remember teen years? show me yours and i will show mine.. ;)

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 09:19 AM
I guess Samsung just felt like they had to strike back. I'd like to know if they actually thought they could get to see iPhone 5 and iPad 3.

On a side note, lawyer talk always makes me have to read things twice :(

zergy
Jun 14, 2011, 09:20 AM
desperate eh?

really though, it is the software/apps which are truly killer and no amount of hardware disclosure will allow them to copy that.

unless of course they step in and resurrect Maemo...:rolleyes:

MacinDoc
Jun 14, 2011, 09:20 AM
If you actually read the news item, the reasoning is spelled out in the first sentence.
The problem with Samsung's reasoning is that Apple is not alleging that Samsung is infringing on future Apple products, just on ones that are currently in production. To be honest, an embarrassingly transparent ploy on Samsung's lawyers' part, IMO.
wait, so apple can request to see samsung products but samsung cant' see apples?
Apple is arguing that there's a difference between seeing a product that has already been announced, detailed and promoted, and which bears a remarkable similarity to Apple's IP, and may therefore have a bearing on the current case, and seeing a product that is in development and which may have no recognizable similarity to anything currently in production.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 14, 2011, 09:22 AM
If only that kid who made the wi-fi sync app for iOS could have seen the Apple prototype. Oh wait, he made it ;)

I think Samsung's got the right idea.

SiPat
Jun 14, 2011, 09:22 AM
If you actually read the news item, the reasoning is spelled out in the first sentence.

ostensibly to help it defend itself against Apple's charges of copying and other infringement.

ostensibly: apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.

NakedPaulToast
Jun 14, 2011, 09:24 AM
Apple has accused Samsung of copying, they've created a list of similarities between the devices.

By asking for unreleased/unannounced devices, Samsung hopes to find more similarities. This would be compelling evidence that some of the similarities weren't derived through copying, but by their own innovation or a natural progression.

Samsung asking for these devices is relevant, and if Apple didn't want to go down this road, they shouldn't have opened that door.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 09:26 AM
Hello Pot, This is Kettle calling...

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 09:28 AM
Weak response... Samsung's gambit is a good one...

Gambit? What makes you call Samsung's ridiculous demands a gambit?

nizmoz
Jun 14, 2011, 09:29 AM
So when Apple demands to see prototypes, it's ok. But when Samsung requests exactly the same thing, it's called harassment? Interesting...

IMHO, I think Samsung did it mostly so they can see what they are coming out with to COPY it as well.

rick98761
Jun 14, 2011, 09:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I just don't understand this lawsuit. Just about every android phone is similar to an iPhone. Phones anymore are slates of glass. What else do you want them to do? This will be bad for all of us if apple wins.

bb426
Jun 14, 2011, 09:33 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Good. Samsung has no good reason to see products that haven't even seen the light of day. What would they say anyways? "Apple, you copied US. Pay up mah fruit brothas!"

Thunderhawks
Jun 14, 2011, 09:36 AM
really?
shocking

i was expecting apple to invite a few samsung engineers to their labs to discuss everything in detail and send them back with demo units

You forgot the engineering blue prints and an online support FAQ, in case they don't understand everything.

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 09:38 AM
I just don't understand this lawsuit. Just about every android phone is similar to an iPhone. Phones anymore are slates of glass. What else do you want them to do? This will be bad for all of us if apple wins.

Apple doesn't sue Samsung for producing a phone that is "a slate of glass". Apple has a design patent in which it lists about ten design items that it wishes to protect. To infringe on that design patent, Samsung had to copy all or most of these ten design items. Blackberries look completely different than iPhones; Windows phones look completely different than iPhones (a bit more similar than Blackberries in most cases, but still very different). Most Android phones look sufficiently different that you wouldn't confuse them with an iPhone. Most Samsung phones look sufficiently different. Just a few match so many items of Apple's design patent that Apple feels that the similarities are damaging to Apple's business and that it can win a court case.

And what else does Apple want Samsung to do? To stop building phones that look like iPhones.

RoboCop001
Jun 14, 2011, 09:40 AM
Gambit? What makes you call Samsung's ridiculous demands a gambit?

No, no, don't worry about it. It's ok. Apple's Wolverine is more than a match.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 09:42 AM
I think most of the initial lawsuit from Apple (about look and feel, etc.) is without merit, but I do agree with denying Samsung's request at this time. It would be a more appropriate request when Apple filed for an injunction (you can't base arguments entirely on hypothetical scenarios).

Samsung's entire argument to see future Apple devices is based on if they have a device and they do file an injunction, it would be reasonable to ask outside counsel (as Apple is doing with Samsung's products) to come to a conclusion regarding the consistency of the design aspects of Apple products.

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 09:45 AM
No, no, don't worry about it. It's ok. Apple's Wolverine is more than a match.

I think the word "gambit" doesn't mean what you think it means.

TC316
Jun 14, 2011, 09:47 AM
It's amazing what some companies will do to undermine Apple's line of products. Samsung must be run by a bunch of idiots. Steve Jobs must roll his eyes when things like this cross his desk.

RoboCop001
Jun 14, 2011, 09:49 AM
I think the word "gambit" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Darn, I thought it would be obvious by using "Wolverine" it would be obvious I was making a joke lol :D

X-Men?

toddybody
Jun 14, 2011, 09:50 AM
Samsung shouldnt have access to unreleased Apple hardware and Apple shouldnt have access to unreleased Samsung hardware.

If patent infringement occurs, seek damages accordingly. This attempt at spying and harassment is pathetic for both parties.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 09:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Good. Samsung has no good reason to see products that haven't even seen the light of day. What would they say anyways? "Apple, you copied US. Pay up mah fruit brothas!"

Samsung's legal argument is that reciprocal device analysis would allow them to make a proper case against Apple (Apple is having an outside firm look at the prototype Samsung products with the company having no access to them directly, just the conclusions as pertinent to device analysis; Samsung wants the same) in the since that it would allow for a more proper analysis of what Apple's trade dress is; essentially, Apple is not as consistent as they claim in design and some/all of the aspects they're claiming do not constitute a trade dress with secondary meaning. Samsung argues that it is only fair.

The argument for access is premature as Apple hasn't filed an injunction (one of the reasons Samsung asked for the device access), and Samsung has already released device samples/information to the public for many of the devices in the lawsuit (e.g. the SGS II).

The trade dress Apple has in the future is really irrelevant; the court will analyze if the aspects as they are now constitute a trade dress proper that would be likely or certain to cause consumers to think Samsung devices were made by or had some other affiliation with Apple at present. With minor exception (there's a reasonable claim behind the similarity of the registered iTunes trademark and the music icon on some Samsung devices that I could see causing confusion), I think most of Apple's claims are too broad and don't constitute a trade dress (rounded corners, rounded icons on a phone screen, etc.).

We'll see what shakes out.

bbeagle
Jun 14, 2011, 09:51 AM
So when Apple demands to see prototypes, it's ok. But when Samsung requests exactly the same thing, it's called harassment? Interesting...

But nothing like that happened, anti-fan boy.

honkj
Jun 14, 2011, 09:52 AM
Oh no! A legal story that links to a blog based on interests and not the law. . .

and pray tell, which law are you referring too? the one about a company asking for none existent future products? or the one about a company actually wanting to see things that don't exist yet?

what is particularly laughable about your comment is that somehow a person with a "legal" background, is in the only position to respond on things that have no bases in law.. (there are no prior cases where a company asked to see products that don't exist yet)

by friday we will know what the judge "thinks" because there is only going to be his opinion that counts... somehow without having any "legal" background, it is still pretty obvious what the judge will rule..

honkj
Jun 14, 2011, 09:56 AM
Samsung's legal argument is that reciprocal device analysis ;Samsung wants the same).

no, Apple wants to see products that are already announced, Samsung wants to see products that have not only not been announced but do not exist yet. there is a big difference there... worse it is Apple suing for trade dress, Samsung has not brought such a suit, so has no basis in asking to see what does not exist.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 09:57 AM
IMHO, I think Samsung did it mostly so they can see what they are coming out with to COPY it as well.

Samsung's argument is that they need to see it in an attempt to prove that Apple's alleged trade dress is not consistent (e.g. changes in next gen products) to the point where not having it would substantially weaken their legal ability to defend themselves.

Considering Apple hasn't announced the existence of such products and the argument is over present alleged "Apple trade dress", the argument is flimsy at best.

Samsung would also not have direct access (basically, legal industrial espionage). 3rd party lawyers would handle it and make a summary.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:00 AM
no, Apple wants to see products that are already announced, Samsung wants to see products that have not only not been announced but do not exist yet. there is a big difference there... worse it is Apple suing for trade dress, Samsung has not brought such a suit, so has no basis in asking to see what does not exist.

On the announced/unnanounced point, I addressed that by saying that there was a difference (Samsung's argument against Apple seeing their devices was substantially weakened):

Samsung has already released device samples/information to the public for many of the devices in the lawsuit (e.g. the SGS II).

On Apple suing Samsung but not vice versa: Samsung's claims would have merit regardless if Apple had announced a future product (and therefore the advertising, trade dress aspects, etc. were reaching the public). That by itself does not constitute a reason for denial - reciprocal access would be appropriate if Apple had announced an upcoming product or had released details/samples. As is, they're without merit.

Prallethrin
Jun 14, 2011, 10:00 AM
It is.

The cumbags at Samsung are just playing games now.

They tried to piggy-back of the iPhone's reputation, tried to mispresent their Galaxy S in the eye's of the ill-informed. Apple called them on it, now they are whining like bitches.

A pity Google is still using their services, their taint has infected Google's reputation in my eyes.

darnovo
Jun 14, 2011, 10:01 AM
lol @ Apple saying the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 are trade secrets... you mean those two devices that you will add a little better processor to, maybe change the shape a little and slap a new picture on the box and call it magical?

hate to tell u, but it's no secret

wordoflife
Jun 14, 2011, 10:01 AM
What, they want to see iPhone 5 and iPad 3 without seeing the iPod Touch 5???!? :eek:

Anyways, I wonder if Apple will just sell an iPhone 5 and iPad 3 with the same design, just faster internals.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 10:02 AM
Samsung could always invite Gray Powell out for drinks...

notabadname
Jun 14, 2011, 10:04 AM
Apple's dead on in this case. What is the relevance of future Apple products to Apple's suit about just releasing Samsung products copying existing Apple products?

paul4339
Jun 14, 2011, 10:06 AM
I'm surprised that RIM hasn't sued anyone ... If Apple wins this one, I hope that RIM steps up as well... I've seen so many phones that look very very similar to RIM (blackberry clones)

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:07 AM
Apple's dead on in this case. What is the relevance of future Apple products to Apple's suit about just releasing Samsung products copying existing Apple products?

If the products were at least announced, it would have relevance on Samsung's ability to make a case against allegations of trade dress (e.g. logo changes, design changes, etc. that would punch a hole in the argument that alleged design aspects are unique to Apple in the mind of a consumer).

As is, it's irrelevant.

nwcs
Jun 14, 2011, 10:08 AM
Amazing how many people comment without reading the article or using an ounce of their brain. Samsung's motion will be denied and all will move forward. I have no idea if Apple's case has merit but it will be interesting to see how this continues to develop.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 10:09 AM
and pray tell, which law are you referring too? the one about a company asking for none existent future products? or the one about a company actually wanting to see things that don't exist yet?

what is particularly laughable about your comment is that somehow a person with a "legal" background, is in the only position to respond on things that have no bases in law.. (there are no prior cases where a company asked to see products that don't exist yet)

by friday we will know what the judge "thinks" because there is only going to be his opinion that counts... somehow without having any "legal" background, it is still pretty obvious what the judge will rule..

You're kidding, right? This involves the courts, as you admit. So of course it's a legal story. That means it will be decided on the basis of law, something almost all of us have no formal training in (including the FOSS Patents guy). So all of our comments reflect our personal biases. Too bad. The judge will decide on the basis of law, and it won't necessarily be intuitive, just legal. Law is not always obvious.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:10 AM
Amazing how many people comment without reading the article or using an ounce of their brain.

Well, it's an exciting topic. I do think some people hit reply too quickly.

Samsung's motion will be denied and all will move forward. I have no idea if Apple's case has merit but it will be interesting to see how this continues to develop.

That will be for the court to decide. I think things such as "a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded" and "a rectangular box with metallic silver lettering and a large front-view picture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;" (in combination with the other aspects apple describes) do not make me think it's an Apple product or at all affiliated with Apple.

We're geeks though, we follow the devices and their releases, and their specific differences. The average consumer might not.

toddybody
Jun 14, 2011, 10:11 AM
Apple is being racist

but wasnt it the White iPhones that had all the trouble?

CindyRed
Jun 14, 2011, 10:12 AM
really?
shocking

i was expecting apple to invite a few samsung engineers to their labs to discuss everything in detail and send them back with demo units

Yeah, imagine if Apple did that early in their existence with say; Microsoft, during the heydays of the "ideal OS quests" of the 70's. Could you imagine? Oh... Wait...

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:13 AM
You're kidding, right? This involves the courts, as you admit. So of course it's a legal story. That means it will be decided on the basis of law, something almost all of us have no formal training in (including the FOSS Patents guy). So all of our comments reflect our personal biases. Too bad. The judge will decide on the basis of law, and it won't necessarily be intuitive, just legal. Law is not always obvious.

Law is also not always consistent and requires the judgment and opinion of a human being. Something could be "illegal" or "Legal" under the perceived intent of the law and the case circumstances.

Apple knows this well from Apple Computer v. Microsoft; however, it's not just design/UI similarity (there were a few design patents in there as well, plus a claim of violating the iTunes logo trademark). Other than the iTunes logo I think Apple's reasoning is spurious, but we're far from average consumers. At least your average judge probably isn't a geek and will likely represent a more typical viewpoint on the similarities, perception of trade dress, etc.

logandzwon
Jun 14, 2011, 10:16 AM
yes, because next generation, unannounced, not-even in production units have anything to do with if Samsung copied past and current gen iPhones.

toddybody
Jun 14, 2011, 10:16 AM
Dear ddolde,
Enjoy Permanent Banning Purgatory.

-Todd

PS: You know MR's head honcho is Arnold Kim right? Yeesh

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:18 AM
For some odd reason i've noticed Americans get overly excited when it concerns lawsuits.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 10:21 AM
Samsung needs to come clean, admit they copied Apple and move on.

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:23 AM
Apple needs to come clean, admit they copied Android's notification system and move on.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:25 AM
Samsung needs to come clean, admit they copied Apple and move on.

"Copying" in the sense of incorporating design aspects people like is not illegal. Apple needs to prove that consumers are/will be misled by the design similarities of the iDevices and Samsung products in order to get any relief.

Winni
Jun 14, 2011, 10:27 AM
Do you people even read the news article?

Actually, that is exactly the point: Apple demands to see prototypes of unreleased products because they claim that Samsung is copying Apple's designs (presumably also) in FUTURE products. Now Samsung wants to see some of Apple's prototypes as well to better defend themselves.

This whole thing is ridiculous, and I think Samsung is just giving Apple's legal department a taste of their own medicine.

Anyway, when I look at the Samsung Galaxy S2, Apple should definitely be worried. The S2 is so far ahead of the iPhone, it's not even funny anymore.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:27 AM
Apple needs to come clean, admit they copied Android's notification system and move on.

Of course, common quip I'm seeing around. I agree that Apple was inspired by it, but I view it as a positive thing for Apple device users, not some point of defeat or evil action in a war.

This is the thing I refuse to understand. Why is incorporating a design aspect that people find positive so voraciously hated by some people (I wouldn't say "everyone here" because that's the polar opposite; opinions seem moderate and varied on the whole).

Everybody wins. In prior trade dress lawsuits (many of which ruled against the plaintiff), the judges were careful to mention that every improvement in design should not be blocked and trade dress must have a "secondary meaning".

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 10:29 AM
Apple needs to come clean, admit they copied Android's notification system and move on.

They did.

So they so called 'copied' Android's notification menu and people are ********?

To be honest, didn't android copied SBSettings in the first place. Agreed that SBSettings were not notifications, they did come out of the status bar in the form of a drop-down menu.

So all in all, heres what you are claiming:

Apple agree to it that you copied Android's notification system which is a drop-down menu on the status bar used by tonnes of jailbreak apps, unix operating systems and OSX itself for notifications and settings. Sad.

Get over it already.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 10:32 AM
Anyway, when I look at the Samsung Galaxy S2, Apple should definitely be worried. The S2 is so far ahead of the iPhone, it's not even funny anymore.

Competitors always trump Apple on spec sheets. It's the entire ecosystem that needs to be beat in order to beat Apple, as all those iPod competitors learned. So the Samsung Galaxy S2 may be all that, but until they can compete with Apple's entire world, I don't think Apple is too worried.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 10:33 AM
Competitors always trump Apple on spec sheets. It's the entire ecosystem that needs to be beat in order to beat Apple, as all those iPod competitors learned. So the Samsung Galaxy S2 may be all that, but until they can compete with Apple's entire world, I don't think Apple is too worried.

If they are eating into Apple's sales, which they are, then obviously Apple's worried.

But its not that Apple didn't know about this.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 10:37 AM
Actually, that is exactly the point: Apple demands to see prototypes of unreleased products because they claim that Samsung is copying Apple's designs (presumably also) in FUTURE products. Now Samsung wants to see some of Apple's prototypes as well to better defend themselves.

This whole thing is ridiculous, and I think Samsung is just giving Apple's legal department a taste of their own medicine.

Anyway, when I look at the Samsung Galaxy S2, Apple should definitely be worried. The S2 is so far ahead of the iPhone, it's not even funny anymore.

Only problem is it's running Android. The hardware is useless when the software ecosystem is a mess.

Apple has nothing to worry about. They've got their market locked up. They've figured out the golden combination between hardware + software. It's all about synergy.

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:37 AM
They did.

So they so called 'copied' Android's notification menu and people are ********?

To be honest, didn't android copied SBSettings in the first place. Agreed that SBSettings were not notifications, they did come out of the status bar in the form of a drop-down menu.

So all in all, heres what you are claiming:

Apple agree to it that you copied Android's notification system which is a drop-down menu on the status bar used by tonnes of jailbreak apps, unix operating systems and OSX itself for notifications and settings. Sad.

Get over it already.

Samsung copied Apple, Apple copied Android. Happy now?

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 10:39 AM
Only problem is it's running Android. The hardware is useless when the software ecosystem is a mess.

Apple has nothing to worry about. They've got their market locked up. They've figured out the golden combination between hardware + software. It's all about synergy.

Android is not as bad as you make it seem.

Exosystems/Hardware/Software exist outside Apple.

Some are better; some are not. :|

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 10:40 AM
Samsung copied Apple, Apple copied Android. Happy now?

If you read my post and that's what you assert, great.

I am happy that you understood it properly. :rolleyes:

LeoNobilis
Jun 14, 2011, 10:42 AM
So, Copycats demand disclosure on the roadmap from the Source they love to copy. This is as blatant as Samsung can be.

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:42 AM
If you read my post and that's what you assert, great.

I am happy that understood it properly. :rolleyes:

Your assertion is incorrect, thankfully your reading comprehension is up to scratch.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 10:43 AM
I'm embarrassed for Samsung. They blatantly copied Apple. Where is their honor?

At least the other tablet makers have tried to put some originality into the interface.

I know that Samsung parts go into products from other companies. But I will not buy a Samsung brand item such as a TV for a long time.

DanteMann
Jun 14, 2011, 10:44 AM
Competitors always trump Apple on spec sheets. It's the entire ecosystem that needs to be beat in order to beat Apple, as all those iPod competitors learned. So the Samsung Galaxy S2 may be all that, but until they can compete with Apple's entire world, I don't think Apple is too worried.

I believe this is why Apple wants to stop Samsung of all it's competitors. Seriously look at all the phones out there. They all look similar. Look at all the Tablets out there, they all look similar. GS2 looks absolutely nothing like an iPhone. I have both. So why only go after Samsung. I really don't get this lawsuit. I really see it as Apple truly being worried of the potential of Samsung to completely overtake the mobile world. And if you want to talk ecosystems, will no one has the potential of a truly whole ecosystem. Not just a computer, phone, tablet and apps. I'm talking the whole ecosystem, as in your whole darn home and home devices. Samsung makes everything. Anyone who doesn't think Apple considers Samsung a force to be reckoned with, is in denial. If the rumors turn out to be true that Samsung is looking to buy Nokia, this lawsuit and future lawsuits will have just got more interesting.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 10:46 AM
Your assertion is incorrect, thankfully your reading comprehension is up to scratch.

Sincerely noted.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 10:46 AM
Only problem is it's running Android. The hardware is useless when the software ecosystem is a mess.

Apple has nothing to worry about. They've got their market locked up. They've figured out the golden combination between hardware + software. It's all about synergy.

Whats wrong with Android exactly? Since switch from iOS to Android the only thing different I can tell is my ability to skin my phone and use it however I want. Other than that they are almost identical.

ghostface147
Jun 14, 2011, 10:47 AM
If I were Samsung, I'd stop making stuff Apple requests for their products. Where are they going to get there display panels from? LG (who made the one that leak light)?

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 10:47 AM
The courts have already ordered Samsung to show Apple the goods. WTF is the holdup, Samsung? Have you complied or do you plan on doing so?

Any counter-requests and demands by Samsung at this point is just delays, posturing, and quite frankly, as Apple has stated "harassment."

Samsung has been exposed as an infringer by the courts. Their first priority should be to act accordingly.

If I were Samsung, I'd stop making stuff Apple requests for their products. Where are they going to get there display panels from? LG (who made the one that leak light)?

Supply contracts have nothing to do with this. You'd be pretty dumb to lose a huge customer like Apple because you wanted to act out of spite. I'm quite sure Samsung's board would never allow that, or if they did they'd have gone collectively insane.

What, you don't want to make any money?

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 10:48 AM
The bigger the company is, the more resources. Large companies often hire PR firms to go out and counter bad publicity on the internet. It is called damage control. Samsung is a big company. You'll probably see very enthusiastic supporters of Samsung show up on threads like this here and on similar sites.

Samsung's first tablet was a flop. The second won't do any better. They are better off making money helping Apple than copying them.

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:49 AM
If I were Samsung, I'd stop making stuff Apple requests for their products. Where are they going to get there display panels from? LG (who made the one that leak light)?

Sharp are supposedly carrying out the duties for the follow up to the current iphone.

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 10:52 AM
if i was Samsung, i'd rather ask to see the new Macbook Airs

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 10:54 AM
if i was Samsung, i'd rather ask to see the new Macbook Airs

They are still trying to "rethink" their tablet. One step at a time.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 10:56 AM
The courts have already ordered Samsung to show Apple the goods. WTF is the holdup, Samsung? Have you complied or do you plan on doing so?

Any counter-requests and demands by Samsung at this point is just delays, posturing, and quite frankly, as Apple has stated "harassment."

Samsung has been exposed as an infringer by the courts. Their first priority should be to act accordingly.



Wow - you really know nothing of how these kinds of lawsuits work. It's not harassment. Each side builds up their argument and counter arguments using whatever intel they have or can obtains.

It's SOP. It's not harassment. It's also completely legal and above board. Just like it's completely legal for the prosecution or defense to hand over discovery but bury important facts amongst paper trails a mile long so it become impossible to locate. Ethical - no - probably not. But legal.

thatrandomguy
Jun 14, 2011, 10:56 AM
The courts have already ordered Samsung to show Apple the goods. WTF is the holdup, Samsung? Have you complied or do you plan on doing so?

Who knows, but they had 30 days from May 24th to do it (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/24/samsung_ordered_to_show_its_new_prototypes_to_apple.html), so they're still legally fine even if they haven't done it yet.

Any counter-requests and demands by Samsung at this point is just delays, posturing, and quite frankly, as Apple has stated "harassment."

There is some potential ability for Samsung to legitimately to defend themselves under the consistency of trade dress, but it's all moot until those products are, at a minimum, announced.

Samsung has been exposed as an infringer by the courts. Their first priority should be to act accordingly.

Did you read the same legal documents and articles that I did? The court found Apple's claims that they needed to see the devices hands on to make a judgment on whether or not to file for a preliminary injunction had merit. The court has not found that Apple's trade dress has been violated in any way, shape, or form at this point. Any claim that they have been "exposed as an infringer" is not based in reality at this time, at least in a legal sense.

At most, the court acknowledged that "Apple has produced images of Samsung products and other evidence that provide a reasonable basis for Apple's belief that Samsung's new products are designed to mimic Apple's products.", but they declined to provide an opinion of their own. They're just saying Apple's claims are not completely and obviously ludicrous to an outside observer.

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 10:56 AM
Samsung needs to come clean, admit they copied Apple and move on.

and apple needs to admit that they copied android, blackberry, and wifi sync.. then we could all be merry. i believe the way iOS5 will handle lockscreen messaging is how Samsung's Touchwiz already works.. so at the end of the day.. everyone copies each other

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 10:58 AM
They are still trying to "rethink" their tablet. One step at a time.

um.. it's already out. and if you actually try it out without your usual bias.. you'd find a real good tablet. here's a good read for you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4445/samsung-galaxy-tab-101-review

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 10:59 AM
Once Samsung release the Galaxy S with retina on top of the critically acclaimed Super AMOLED plus display the iphone will effectively bite the dust.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 11:06 AM
and apple needs to admit that they copied android, blackberry, and wifi sync.. then we could all be merry. i believe the way iOS5 will handle lockscreen messaging is how Samsung's Touchwiz already works.. so at the end of the day.. everyone copies each other

Yes everyone copies each other but there's a difference here. The difference has been explained by some very learned people inside and outside this forum; so I won't be repeating any.

As for the Blackberry and wifi-sync thing, here's my argument:

1. BBM: What is Google Talk? AIM? ACQ? Windows Messenger?

They all are more or less the same. The only difference is that they are not platform dependent. If Windows Messenger becomes restricted to Windows devices, what does it? Is it a BBM clone?

Don't tell me that a simple chat client is BBM clone.

2. Wifi-sync?

I don't know how people would comprehend this, but it just makes you look like a troll.
These are generic things which are not something that one copies from another. This would be like saying.
In 2012 Android implements GPU accelerating in Android IceCream-Sandwitch. Such a copy of other operating systems.

Weird arguments.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 11:09 AM
and apple needs to admit that they copied android, blackberry, and wifi sync.. then we could all be merry. i believe the way iOS5 will handle lockscreen messaging is how Samsung's Touchwiz already works.. so at the end of the day.. everyone copies each other

Implemented features competitors offer is one thing. Samsung has done more than that. Compare Samsung's tablet to the Playbook for instance. The Playbook has some unique features in the OS that distinguish it. Admittedly all tablets will be similar, but each should try to offer something new.

Nice try rehashing the old talking points though. The key word there being "old". You lose.

As for Samsung's tablet, Android itself is a problem. Google can't seem to get rid of the malware. I've heard some call it the Windows of mobile OS. I'm sure it is a fine OS but I don't have time to deal with all that. I like to pass on the news though so that Android users get it quickly. Here are some recent Android malware news to be aware of:

Android Market's Malware Flood Level Rises With Plankton Surge (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Android-Markets-Malware-Flood-Level-Rises-With-Plankton-Surge-72653.html)

Android Malware Found in Angry Birds Add-On Apps (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/android-malware-angry-birds/)

scoobydoo99
Jun 14, 2011, 11:10 AM
Once Samsung release the Galaxy S with retina on top of the critically acclaimed Super AMOLED plus display the iphone will effectively bite the dust.

Quite an ironic post, considering Apple has filed trademarks for "Retina" display.

"Galaxy S with retina" LOL

bb426
Jun 14, 2011, 11:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Once Samsung release the Galaxy S with retina on top of the critically acclaimed Super AMOLED plus display the iphone will effectively bite the dust.

Quite an ironic post, considering Apple has filed trademarks for "Retina" display.

"Galaxy S with retina" LOL

Surprised eye care companies haven't sued yet.

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 11:16 AM
Quite an ironic post, considering Apple has filed trademarks for "Retina" display.

"Galaxy S with retina" LOL

You know perfectly well i meant a high PPI comparable to the Iphone 4, quicker to just say retina.

iMaci7
Jun 14, 2011, 11:19 AM
I dont understand why Samsung wants to see Apples future products. What are they trying to prove?

And, based on Apples accusation, thats the last thing Apple would want to do right? Why give Samsung a sneak peak at their newest creations, when you acuse them of copying?

bb426
Jun 14, 2011, 11:25 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I dont understand why Samsung wants to see Apples future products. What are they trying to prove?

And, based on Apples accusation, thats the last thing Apple would want to do right? Why give Samsung a sneak peak at their newest creations, when you acuse them of copying?

If the courts ask, they must give. No way around it, unless Samsung is denied. And Samsung HAS an argument; whether or not it's a good one is another story.

TMar
Jun 14, 2011, 11:25 AM
This was pretty blatant. Apple's suing them for violating its patents. Apple requests to see recently announced/released products to see if it needs to include them in the suit.

Samsung needs to see Apple's products because...???

It's completely irrelevant?

Unless they really do base their product designs on what comes out of Apple? There are easier ways to admit guilt.

Samsung did it in jest/to make a point.

Samsung claims that it needs to see Apple's future products because devices like the Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1 will presumably be in the market at the same time as the iPhone 5 and iPad 3, and Samsung's lawyers want to evaluate any possible similarities so they can prepare for further potential legal action from Apple.

un.titled
Jun 14, 2011, 11:29 AM
Samsung wants to see Apple's unreleased products right after Apple blamed them for already stealing ideas? Get the **** out.

b0blndsy
Jun 14, 2011, 11:30 AM
MacRumors - Conflicted

Blogs/Serious Blogs - Yes: Samsungs Bad

Engadget comment section - **** Apple.

Go figure.

Yes thats the primary reason of the lawsuit Apple filed.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 11:33 AM
If they are eating into Apple's sales, which they are, then obviously Apple's worried.


Where is your evidence that they are eating into Apple's sales? Everything I see says Apple sells 'em as fast as they can make 'em. It's not Apple's fault that the phone market is so vast that a bunch of companies can have skyrocketing sales at the same time.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 11:35 AM
Whats wrong with Android exactly? Since switch from iOS to Android the only thing different I can tell is my ability to skin my phone and use it however I want. Other than that they are almost identical.

Shhh! You're supposed to pretend that Apple is hopelessly outdated, far behind in functionality, and dead in the water. Instead you say iOS and Android have the same abilities. Bad for the Android camp to admit that.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 11:43 AM
Once Samsung release the Galaxy S with retina on top of the critically acclaimed Super AMOLED plus display the iphone will effectively bite the dust.

What about the software? What happened to that? You know, all the stuff that happens from when you turn the phone on to when it needs charging.

ABernardoJr
Jun 14, 2011, 11:43 AM
On a lighter note, it comes as little surprise that samsung happens to be mirroring Apple's request to see their products in court, much as it allegedly mirrors Apple's products. And samsung still manages to do both wrong.

azbigdog
Jun 14, 2011, 11:54 AM
If they are eating into Apple's sales, which they are, then obviously Apple's worried.

But its not that Apple didn't know about this.

Show me one report or chart or anything that shows that they are eating into Apple's profit. The report I saw yesterday says iPhone 4 is top selling phone at verizon, and at&t. A phone that is a year old, is still outselling the droid p.o.s. of the day. I hardly doubt that Apple is worried.

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 11:55 AM
Implemented features competitors offer is one thing. Samsung has done more than that. Compare Samsung's tablet to the Playbook for instance. The Playbook has some unique features in the OS that distinguish it. Admittedly all tablets will be similar, but each should try to offer something new.

Nice try rehashing the old talking points though. The key word there being "old". You lose.

As for Samsung's tablet, Android itself is a problem. Google can't seem to get rid of the malware. I've heard some call it the Windows of mobile OS. I'm sure it is a fine OS but I don't have time to deal with all that. I like to pass on the news though so that Android users get it quickly. Here are some recent Android malware news to be aware of:

Android Market's Malware Flood Level Rises With Plankton Surge (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Android-Markets-Malware-Flood-Level-Rises-With-Plankton-Surge-72653.html)

Android Malware Found in Angry Birds Add-On Apps (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/android-malware-angry-birds/)

hahaha.. i love how you think that just by saying "you lose" wins your argument. wow.. how old are you?

Piggie
Jun 14, 2011, 11:56 AM
So Apple is working on iPad3 now.

Samsung will be working on their next range of Tablets also.

Apple launches the iPad3 next March, Samsung launches something very similar 8 weeks later.

Apple shout "YOU HAVE COPIED US AGAIN"

But how do you know if you are making your product too similar to someone else's product if you don't know what someone else's product is?

It's like me saying I don't want you to make the same model for our exhibition next year, but if you don't tell me what model you are making, how will I know if I'm making the same one?

It's all a bit silly.

Mind you, we should not forget, all of this is great news for us the consumers.

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 11:57 AM
Yes everyone copies each other but there's a difference here. The difference has been explained by some very learned people inside and outside this forum; so I won't be repeating any.

As for the Blackberry and wifi-sync thing, here's my argument:

1. BBM: What is Google Talk? AIM? ACQ? Windows Messenger?

They all are more or less the same. The only difference is that they are not platform dependent. If Windows Messenger becomes restricted to Windows devices, what does it? Is it a BBM clone?

Don't tell me that a simple chat client is BBM clone.

2. Wifi-sync?

I don't know how people would comprehend this, but it just makes you look like a troll.
These are generic things which are not something that one copies from another. This would be like saying.
In 2012 Android implements GPU accelerating in Android IceCream-Sandwitch. Such a copy of other operating systems.

Weird arguments.

so by having similar looking icons is worse than implementing features from other OS? that's my point.. you die hard apple fans claim it's copying when others have similar things to Apple, but when Apple takes features from others.. it's all of a sudden ok?

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 12:05 PM
so by having similar looking icons is worse than implementing features from other OS? that's my point.. you die hard apple fans claim it's copying when others have similar things to Apple, but when Apple takes features from others.. it's all of a sudden ok?

Are you seriously avoid the whole trade dress law suit to jump to icons?

Apple's lawsuit isn't about the icons that TouchWiz uses. It's about the entire presentation from Hardware to software to confuse the person into at the least giving attention to that product.

Leaping Tortois
Jun 14, 2011, 12:06 PM
In regards to the whole lawsuit in general, I think that the biggest place that apple has to look at is in advertising. That screen shot of the Galaxy S app list compared to an iPhone home screen does make it seem like an iPhone (I think that wasn't samsungs smartest move, gives more power to the competitor), BUT as soon as you get past those screens they're VERY different phones.

You know, the galaxy S2 actually IS a bit of a threat to the iPhone market, not saying it'd topple it, just saying that the release time, coupled with excellent phone features and Android's UI, which some people may prefer believe it or not, will lead to many people on expiring iPhone contracts to adopt this phone here and now, on top of that, the iPhone 5 or 4S or whatever will have to be AMAZING (not apple amazing, actual amazing) to even begin to take back the market share. What ever comes out second has to be far better than what came out first. For this years round of phones, the Galaxy S2 is the heavyweight (HTC Sensation is meh and let's say that while the Atrix is nice, it's not as nice as the S2 and not worth all the radiation you'd absorb from using the thing).

As for the guy going on about malware? EVERY device that can run a program can run a virus, or malware, It takes users to screw it up the most these days, and while it's true that an open platform increases the risk, the shear popularity of the iPhone, coupled with users beliefs that it's impervious to viruses, and apple unwillingness to EVER admit that their platforms are susceptible to attack makes for a good target. (http://gizmodo.com/5325703/iphone-sms-security-flaw-could-allow-every-iphone-in-the-world-to-be-hijacked). This flaw later showed up on other platforms, but apple did nothing for a month, good thing these guys didn't release the code to anyone!

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 12:07 PM
Where is your evidence that they are eating into Apple's sales? Everything I see says Apple sells 'em as fast as they can make 'em. It's not Apple's fault that the phone market is so vast that a bunch of companies can have skyrocketing sales at the same time.

Hey,

I know that Apple is going wild with their mobile business, but if you look it from the other side, the sales that are not going for Apple are going for Android-devices irrespective of the fact that Apple cannot make so many of those at the same time.

Btw: iPhone ships in the next 24 hours; so obviously they are making many and selling them as well.

42streetsdown
Jun 14, 2011, 12:12 PM
Apple should be like "iPhone 5, what iPhone 5?"
I mean technically no one outside of Apple can say for certain that the device exists. We all "know" it does, but Apple could just decide to stop making phones now for all we know.

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 12:16 PM
Are you seriously avoid the whole trade dress law suit to jump to icons?

Apple's lawsuit isn't about the icons that TouchWiz uses. It's about the entire presentation from Hardware to software to confuse the person into at the least giving attention to that product.

oh you mean the cherry picked images that's been rehashed all over here? look.. there's no way a sensible 'adult' will ever confuse the phones. again.. all that is aesthetics.. not actual software features like what apple has implemented recently in iOS.. i wasn't gonna point out how you ignored the Android notifications before, so i guess i'll bring that up now. how is having a set of images be worse than having a very recognizable notification system be implemented? and hardware? point to me exactly what will confuse people thinking that a 4" display phone with the name "Samsung" obviously written right up front and back, with 3 different looking capacitive buttons up front, contoured body, and running a completely different OS is an iPhone? do you really think people are that stupid?

cmaier
Jun 14, 2011, 12:24 PM
Weak response... Samsung's gambit is a good one...

No it's not. Samsung needs some legal basis to be allowed access to Apple's products. In fact, even if they had a good reason (and they don't), in almost every court case only Samsung's outside lawyers - not anyone at Samsung - would be permitted to have access to this information. (It would be covered by a "protective order" that determines who is permitted to see it).

As for Apple's response, it's dead on. Samsung has not expressed any rationale for needing access to Apple's information.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 14, 2011, 12:24 PM
oh you mean the cherry picked images that's been rehashed all over here?

So you agree the images are cheery picked but come from Samsung PR and advertising?

look.. there's no way a sensible 'adult' will ever confuse the phones.

You are not supposed to decide for everyone. People get confused. If not exactly confused, they wish to see what's in that particular Samsung galaxy phone now that it looks like the so-popular iPhone.

again.. all that is aesthetics.. not actual software features like what apple has implemented recently in iOS.. i wasn't gonna point out how you ignored the Android notifications before, so i guess i'll bring that up now. how is having a set of images be worse than having a very recognizable notification system be implemented?

See above. A notification system doesn't imply everything. That's not the first thing you see in the operating system. Also again, the notification may be a copy to some but another rational thought explains that it's been in place for years.

and hardware? point to me exactly what will confuse people thinking that a 4" display phone with the name "Samsung" obviously written right up front and back, with 3 different looking capacitive buttons up front, contoured body, and running a completely different OS is an iPhone? do you really think people are that stupid?

People aren't stupid. It's all about tricking people into looking at something. More like phishing. You make a very product very similar to the most popular product and you sell. Simple.

Popeye206
Jun 14, 2011, 12:32 PM
It makes total sense why Samsung needs to see the iPad 3 and iPhone 5.

How else are they going to change their future designs to match if they don't have them? Guess they may have to wait. :p

gkarris
Jun 14, 2011, 12:33 PM
hmmmm, chips or popcorn???? :eek:

:D

MH01
Jun 14, 2011, 12:39 PM
Did Apple just accuse Samsung of "harassment" in relation to Apple secrecy around their products???

HOW DARE Samsung! Only Apple is allowed to Harass people!

radiohead14
Jun 14, 2011, 12:40 PM
So you agree the images are cheery picked but come from Samsung PR and advertising?

sure, i'll give you that.. but people here have also ignored the other ads.. you know.. the ones that don't look anything like the iphone. those are also from their PR and advertising.

You are not supposed to decide for everyone. People get confused. If not exactly confused, they wish to see what's in that particular Samsung galaxy phone now that it looks like the so-popular iPhone.

and what's wrong with people checking out another device that's not Apple? so what if they check it out and decide that they like it?.. hell, they might like it better than the iPhone.. because you know.. it works for their current needs, and aren't just going in it for the looks.

See above. A notification system doesn't imply everything. That's not the first thing you see in the operating system. Also again, the notification may be a copy to some but another rational thought explains that it's been in place for years.

ok.. so when i saw the galaxy s.. you know the first thing i saw? the Android OS. and rational thought explains that marketing's main goal is to sell. that has been in place for years. what if the iPhone's next ad shows the notification system.. which you know they will.. by your same arguments.. wouldn't you agree that some people might confuse Apple being the first to implement it? i mean that'll be what some will see even before buying the next iPhone.

People aren't stupid. It's all about tricking people into looking at something. More like phishing. You make a very product very similar to the most popular product and you sell. Simple.

and again, Apple implemented other OS' features to get others to switch to iOS, which makes the iPhone very similar now to other products.. both companies are fighting for customers..

also.. please answer my previous question.. regarding how exactly is the Samsung's hardware a copy of the iPhone...

rovex
Jun 14, 2011, 01:01 PM
Are you seriously avoid the whole trade dress law suit to jump to icons?

Apple's lawsuit isn't about the icons that TouchWiz uses. It's about the entire presentation from Hardware to software to confuse the person into at the least giving attention to that product.

In what way is the hardware of the S2 remotely similar? Talk about baseless comments.

Dusky600
Jun 14, 2011, 01:02 PM
who tha fck cares ?

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:11 PM
who tha fck cares ?

well you clicked on this thread...

Karnivore
Jun 14, 2011, 01:32 PM
Ah, yes, because if someone steals from you and you tell the cops to check their house for your TV set then the thief has the right to ask the cops to search your house too.

Because, you know, fairsees.

You fail at analogy. Was Samsung convicted of theft, in the court of law?

Accusasion != proof

cmaier
Jun 14, 2011, 01:55 PM
You fail at analogy. Was Samsung convicted of theft, in the court of law?

Accusasion != proof

No, it's a good analogy. Apple, like the theft victim, has made an accusation (tradedress infringement), and the prosecutors (essentially apple since this is a civil suit) have a need to see if Samsung (accused thief) has the goods (soon to be released products).

Samsung (accused thief) can't demand to see the rest of the victim's (apple's) stuff without some legal theory to stand on. If Samsung accuses apple's future products of infringing samsung's rights, then it might have a leg to stand on. But it would have to have a good faith basis for making such an accusation.

Karnivore
Jun 14, 2011, 02:03 PM
No, it's a good analogy. Apple, like the theft victim, has made an accusation (tradedress infringement), and the prosecutors (essentially apple since this is a civil suit) have a need to see if Samsung (accused thief) has the goods (soon to be released products).

Samsung (accused thief) can't demand to see the rest of the victim's (apple's) stuff without some legal theory to stand on. If Samsung accuses apple's future products of infringing samsung's rights, then it might have a leg to stand on. But it would have to have a good faith basis for making such an accusation.

No, it's a terrible analogy. Apple is not a victim until Samsung is proven to be a thief, period.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 02:09 PM
hahaha.. i love how you think that just by saying "you lose" wins your argument. wow.. how old are you?

Well you start using worn out talking points and you can't expect an adult conversation can you?


No, it's a terrible analogy. Apple is not a victim until Samsung is proven to be a thief, period.

They're a thief in the court of public opinion. So many Samsung apologists here today. The call went out. Hopefully Samsung will get their act together and do something original. Look at the Playbook for instance. It has some unique features in its user interface.

Piggie
Jun 14, 2011, 02:10 PM
No, it's a terrible analogy. Apple is not a victim until Samsung is proven to be a thief, period.

There's no thief anyway.

It's like you having done some paintings, then Mr Samsung comes along and looks through your windows of your house and then paints his own artwork that looks a bit like your's.

cmaier
Jun 14, 2011, 02:11 PM
No, it's a terrible analogy. Apple is not a victim until Samsung is proven to be a thief, period.

That makes no sense. We are talking about the context of a court action. That's where proof takes place. Changing "victim" to "alleged victim" in my explanation above doesn't affect the analysis.

Apple is the ALLEGED victim. It is now trying to prove its case. As part of that, it needs access to Samsung's future products to show whether they, too, infringe its tradedress so the court can rule on everything at once.

Samsung is the ALLEGED perpetrator. No element of its defense requires it to have access to Apple's FUTURE products. Just as when someone ACCUSED of robbing my house is defending himself, he doesn't need the floorplan for the new house I moved into after the alleged crime. It's completely irrelevant to his defense.

The fact that Samsung hasn't been "convicted" of anything doesn't change the calculus - Apple is entitled to seek evidence proving its claims. This is called the "discovery" process. Samsung is entitled to seek evidence in support of its own claims and defenses, also as part of the "discovery" process. The problem for Samsung is that Apple's own future products have nothing to do with any of Samsung's own claims or defenses.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 02:28 PM
No, it's a terrible analogy. Apple is not a victim until Samsung is proven to be a thief, period.

I'm pretty sure cmaier knows exactly what he's talking about.

Piggie
Jun 14, 2011, 02:41 PM
Still seems stupid why Apple would want to have one of the Samsung tablets, the new Tab 10.1 to look at, when Apple already does have one of these and is looking at it, stripped it down etc etc by now.

Does anyone really believe Apple did not get one of the early 5000 developer models that were given away at the launch?

Or course they did. they probably got at least one or if not more of them, and had them stripped down the very next day.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is being rather naive.

vvswarup
Jun 14, 2011, 02:45 PM
If I were Samsung, I'd stop making stuff Apple requests for their products. Where are they going to get there display panels from? LG (who made the one that leak light)?

And walk away from billions of dollars?

GorgonPhone
Jun 14, 2011, 02:51 PM
i love apple, but this was a straight up genius move by samsung to "play games" with apple.

yes apple is in trouble and it will be weakened by all these court issues... and monitary pay outs..etc..:(:eek: these things will affect operations at apple and products also:eek:

cmaier
Jun 14, 2011, 02:53 PM
yes apple is in trouble and it will be weakened by all these court issues... and monitary pay outs..etc..:(:eek: these things will affect operations at apple and products also:eek:

um, no.

cirus
Jun 14, 2011, 03:02 PM
Um....

Public opinion really does not matter. What matters is what the court decides. Now, public opinion and consensus do not really matter. 600 years ago everyone agreed the world was flat, was it? No. (Sorry to hijack this thread but those global warming people who claim that a scientific consensus means anything are idiots. Science is about proof not agreement.)

I agree that this was a kind of stupid move by Samsung to try to get apple's future products. But I suppose that if their future products and apple's future products are both similar then it might make sense (they were not copying). However, if this was a south Korean court things would be different. I also think that apple is playing this stunt because Samsung is selling so well in Europe.

They are both acting like 6 year olds.
"Mrs., He copied me. He drew a race car."
"What did you draw?"
"I drew a race car first!"

Karnivore
Jun 14, 2011, 04:29 PM
I'm pretty sure cmaier knows exactly what he's talking about.

I am not sure he does. But hey, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone is bound to have one.

iEvolution
Jun 14, 2011, 04:56 PM
Well if thats not the kettle calling the pot black..I don't know what is.

AbblePC
Jun 14, 2011, 07:14 PM
Well discussion is pretty much mute now,.. From the front page MacRmors

Apple is paying samsung for the licensing.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/

Ok now, back to the iOS5 bandwagon....

Prallethrin
Jun 14, 2011, 07:22 PM
Well discussion is pretty much mute now,.. From the front page MacRmors

Apple is paying samsung for the licensing.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/

Ok now, back to the iOS5 bandwagon....

What?!

Did you even read the headline of the article YOU posted?

seedster2
Jun 14, 2011, 07:28 PM
Android is not as bad as you make it seem.

Exosystems/Hardware/Software exist outside Apple.

Some are better; some are not. :|

I liked the S2 I tried out. Wish it was available on my corporate network.

Whats wrong with Android exactly? Since switch from iOS to Android the only thing different I can tell is my ability to skin my phone and use it however I want. Other than that they are almost identical.

There's nothing really wrong with the few devices I have tried. It's just more spin from the zealot

No it's not. Samsung needs some legal basis to be allowed access to Apple's products. In fact, even if they had a good reason (and they don't), in almost every court case only Samsung's outside lawyers - not anyone at Samsung - would be permitted to have access to this information. (It would be covered by a "protective order" that determines who is permitted to see it).

As for Apple's response, it's dead on. Samsung has not expressed any rationale for needing access to Apple's information.

Agreed. Spot on as usual;)

MacinDoc
Jun 14, 2011, 07:52 PM
I am not sure he does. But hey, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone is bound to have one.
You are aware that cmaier is an intellectual property attorney, aren't you?
yes apple is in trouble and it will be weakened by all these court issues... and monitary pay outs..etc..:(:eek: these things will affect operations at apple and products also:eek:
You're kidding, right? Are you aware of how much money Apple has in the bank? Yes, their reserves will be reduced a bit, but I am certain that the royalty payments they will be making were pretty much what they had expected and planned to pay all along. In no way will this affect their cash flow for the development and production of products.

w00t951
Jun 15, 2011, 01:02 AM
Looks like someone at Samsung couldn't wait for next year to see the next iPhone and iPad! xD

Rodimus Prime
Jun 15, 2011, 01:11 AM
Personally I though it was funny Samsung made the request. They knew it was going to get no where and was just harassment.

At the same time I though Apple demand was pretty piss poor as well and could call Apple demand Harassment as well.

I see the product promos as a slight copy but anyone who has used the device in hand would quickly see that they are quite a bit different.

Marketing is well Marketing. They spin the truth and Apple is one of the most guilty companies of that fact.

caspersoong
Jun 15, 2011, 03:19 AM
Yep. I side with Apple as well because Samsung's request makes absolutely no sense to me. I think it is completely unrelated. Samsung should withdraw.

stylinexpat
Jun 15, 2011, 04:01 AM
Weak response... Samsung's gambit is a good one...

Samsung has a good and valid point though in all honesty. If Samsung has to show Apple their future products then so should Apple. You reveal yours and I reveal mine. There is no such thing as I reveal mine but you don't have to reveal yours. It is only fair that if one is asked or required to share and show that the other party is as well otherwise it would be hypocrisy.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 04:19 AM
Samsung's point is even more valid now. After WWDC, it's important to see what idea Apple will copy next from the Android device/software makers.

Sander
Jun 15, 2011, 05:02 AM
sure, i'll give you that.. but people here have also ignored the other ads.. you know.. the ones that don't look anything like the iphone. those are also from their PR and advertising.

That is a non-argument. If I'm accused of running a red light, I can't defend myself saying there are also red lights I didn't run.

thatrandomguy
Jun 15, 2011, 08:28 AM
Samsung has a good and valid point though in all honesty. If Samsung has to show Apple their future products then so should Apple. You reveal yours and I reveal mine. There is no such thing as I reveal mine but you don't have to reveal yours. It is only fair that if one is asked or required to share and show that the other party is as well otherwise it would be hypocrisy.

In a legal sense this isn't really applicable.


Apple has not announced any new products yet. Samsung is asking for products which (from a legal perspective) may not be announced. We know that Apple inevitably will, but from the base legal standpoint, they haven't yet.
Apple has a valid point in that Apple is not accused of copying Samsung products.
The product is about current trade dress and products that Samsung has currently released or, at a minimum, announced. Samsung argued that they shouldn't have to produce prototypes, but many of the products they defended were announced, and, in the case of the Galaxy S 2, available (not from carriers, but unlocked SGS II phones can be purchasable on Amazon in the US).


The point is Apple is accusing Samsung of copying their trade dress to the point where consumers are likely or certain to be misled into thinking the Samsung products are made by Apple or otherwise affiliated by Apple, where said confusion causes certain loss for Apple (consumers buy Samsung products instead of Apple as a result). I am dubious of this claim - Apple is saying that rounded corners on the device (and rounded icons that "mirror" the rounded corners on the device), a box that opens to the product being immediately visible with accessories underneath, etc. cause confusion - I think the claim is ridiculous, but we'll see what shakes out in court.

If Samsung hadn't announced the products, shown off the photos, and, in some cases, released the products in other markets, the court probably wouldn't have forced Samsung. It's just reality. The products are in the public (even if not publicly available in every market, photos, etc. were available).

Samsung's most valid claim is that seeing future products would allow them to show Apple isn't that consistent with design...but I don't see that standing in light of the other factors.

Personally I though it was funny Samsung made the request. They knew it was going to get no where and was just harassment.

It was more of a stunt than anything else. Calling it harassment is pretty silly, IMO.

I see the product promos as a slight copy but anyone who has used the device in hand would quickly see that they are quite a bit different.

Apple is saying that, prima facie, consumers would think the Samsung devices in the lawsuit were made by Apple if they saw them in public, which they think is a violation of their trade dress and causes them irreparable harm. I'm dubious of that claim, but the claim isn't that people wouldn't fail to recognize the devices being different with side-by-side analysis.

radiohead14
Jun 15, 2011, 09:52 AM
That is a non-argument. If I'm accused of running a red light, I can't defend myself saying there are also red lights I didn't run.

why do people like to make silly unrelated analogies in this forum?

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 15, 2011, 10:09 AM
Samsung's point is even more valid now. After WWDC, it's important to see what idea Apple will copy next from the Android device/software makers.

What exactly is copied mastermind?

kdarling
Jun 15, 2011, 10:14 AM
why do people like to make silly unrelated analogies in this forum?

Ha! I claim naming shotgun!

It's Darling's Corollary to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law):

"In any technical debate between males, an attempted automobile related analogy will arise sooner rather than later."

"Furthermore, the analogy will almost always make no real sense."

:)

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 15, 2011, 10:17 AM
Personally I though it was funny Samsung made the request. They knew it was going to get no where and was just harassment.

True.

At the same time I though Apple demand was pretty piss poor as well and could call Apple demand Harassment as well.

Apple asked for announced and released products which was morally and legally ok. Had they'd asked for Announced and un-released products, it would have been a clear-case of harassment.

I see the product promos as a slight copy but anyone who has used the device in hand would quickly see that they are quite a bit different.

100% agreed. Android doesn't work exactly like iOS. There are differences. Some major; some minor. On another note, it's not about the functional domain of using the product. It's about the domain, where the product is displayed, looks like and usable in the same way as the Apple product.

Marketing is well Marketing. They spin the truth and Apple is one of the most guilty companies of that fact.

I don't see how Apple has been guilty or wrong about, in any of the marketing that they have done in the last 10 years or so. If Mac Vs PC is an argument, then to some extent it might be true, but for the most part, even those ads were a sour bitch from everyone's point of view, they were true in details, specifics and emotions.

JAT
Jun 15, 2011, 06:10 PM
Ha! I claim naming shotgun!

It's Darling's Corollary to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law):

"In any technical debate between males, an attempted automobile related analogy will arise sooner rather than later."

"Furthermore, the analogy will almost always make no real sense."

:)

You forgot:
It will not even be accurate as to cars, because the speaker does not understand cars, either.