Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Calls Samsung's Request to See iPhone 5 and iPad 3 an 'Attempt to Harass'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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...
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...
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
I think Samsung's got the right idea.
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.
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.
Last edited:
IMHO, I think Samsung did it mostly so they can see what they are coming out with to COPY it as well.
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.
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.
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!"
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!"
You forgot the engineering blue prints and an online support FAQ, in case they don't understand everything.
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.
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.
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.
Darn, I thought it would be obvious by using "Wolverine" it would be obvious I was making a joke lol
X-Men?
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.
If patent infringement occurs, seek damages accordingly. This attempt at spying and harassment is pathetic for both parties.
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.
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..
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.