Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and over 100 of the world's leading design professionals have filed a lengthy amicus brief [PDF] in support of Apple in an over five year old patent lawsuit against rival Samsung.

Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages in 2012 after Samsung was found to have copied the "look and feel" of the iPhone, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million -- a sum that Samsung has paid but continues to appeal. The patent lawsuit began back in 2011 and has since made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Apple is fighting for it to remain.

The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Ford, General Electric, GM, Google, IBM, Knoll, Lenovo, LG, Louis Vuitton, NASA, Nike, Polaroid, Porsche, Starbucks, Target, Xerox, and even Samsung itself, among others, believe that Apple is entitled to all profits that Samsung has earned from copying patented designs.

The designers argued that a product's visual design has "powerful effects on the human mind and decision making processes," citing a 1949 study that showed more than 99% of Americans could identify a bottle of Coca-Cola by shape alone. The amicus brief further states that "successful technology companies use design to differentiate themselves from competitors."

Article Link: Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

 

[keysofanxiety]

Good. I'd love to jump into an alternate universe and show them how Samsung phones would look in 2016 had it not been for Apple.

Samsung are historically a company that steal design, functionality, features, make bagloads of profit, and then glue the lawsuits in redtape for years -- until it's not a financial hit for them to pay the fine, as they've made all the money already.

We're not just talking about Apple of course. Kodak, SHARP, Dyson... the list goes on and on and on.

 

[Dave245]

I don't know what the problem is with this, it's clear that Samsung copied the iPhone design, Apple were awarded $1Billion and that's what they should of got.

 

[BigJayhawk]

So blatantly obvious. Nothing at Samsung looked like an iPhone UNTIL the iPhone. Then everything "smart-phone-wise" looked like an iPhone AFTER iPhone.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

But what about "smell alikes?" Rite Aid Night Swept is in trouble.

 

[Dave245]

Good. I'd love to jump into an alternate universe and show them how Samsung phones would look in 2016 had it not been for Apple.

Samsung are historically a company that steal design, functionality, features, make bagloads of profit, and then glue the lawsuits in redtape for years -- until it's not a financial hit for them to pay the fine, as they've made all the money already.

We're not just talking about Apple of course. Kodak, SHARP, Dyson... the list goes on and on and on.

And they continued to copy features for years!

 

[Rogifan]

Seems to me the bigger case can be made with the software, not the hardware. Didn't the original award get reduced because some of the hardware infringement were thrown out/overturned?

 

[xDKP]

Pretty solid design-support - but ever since Apple won the first round, it has gone Samsungs way (which seems pretty sick IMO)

 

[SpiderDude]

This article made me make this face irl.

 

[Sandybox]

Another variation on the US's crazy IP laws. Most industrial design is derivative if you look hard enough. I bet there are designers out there that could show a sketch of an "iPhone-a-like", an iconic building, clothing, motor vehicle etc that looks like the " real thing" was drawn well before the branded item hit the streets. Only problem is, those visionary designers know full well that the companies mentioned in the article are so well financed and lawyer'd up that fighting them would be pointless. The big firms thrive on intimidating others.

 

[djcerla]

"Dieter Rams..."

This morning is a shiny one for sir Jony Ive.

 

[keysofanxiety]

so well fnanced and lawyer'd up that fighting them would be pointless. The big firms thrive on intimidating others.

Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.

The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

I find this ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS.

For months all the tech blogs have been yapping their traps about "all the companies" supporting Samsung with amicus briefs and making it appear everyone is on their side and against Apple. Then we see something like this with the worlds top designers actually agreeing with Apple.

Selective reporting at its best.

 

[Sandybox]

"Dieter Rams..."

This morning is a shiny one for sir Jony Ive.

Dieter Rams' ten design principles are statements of the bleedin' obvious. A talented designer following them will no doubt make a fine product, but in following those principles will also almost certainly create such a minimalist design that it is likely to resemble someone elses. Perhaps Samsung followed Rams' principles that week and it wasn't plagarism?

 

[Keniutek]

Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.

The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.

 

[samcraig]

Oh for craps sake - some of the same BS arguments/FUD are being rehashed again.

The brief isn't going to do much. And Apple should be treading very carefully here since on the flip side, they want to argue they shouldn't pay patents on the price of the entire phone but rather by component.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Hate to pop your bubble, but Apple didn't patent the screen.

And what came out of those Samsung prototypes? Exactly, exactly what you would expect for a company at that time.

They weren't prototypes of full touchscreen phones. They were just prototypes of slider phones. Prototypes of phones that Nokia already had released in the market, by the way.

 

[Sandybox]

Oooooh, a case made on both sides now. The post by keysofanxiety shows one Samsung phone that looks well on the way to a big screen iteration already.

 

[kidaje]

Hmm.. Support from Google, that's odd

 

[Sandybox]

Hate to pop your bubble, but Apple didn't patent the screen.

And what came out of those Samsung prototypes? Exactly, exactly what you would expect for a company at that time.

They weren't prototypes of full touchscreen phones. They were just prototypes of slider phones. Prototypes of phones that Nokia already had released in the market, by the way.

But surely with the slide closed it would be apple copying the "look"?.

 

[eddieaus]

Apple better not release an iPhone with curved OLED next year then.

 

[69Mustang]

This thread is going to go off the rails.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Hmm.. Support from Google, that's odd

And Xerox too!!

Surely the naysayers must be thinking: "hmm, this is a bit odd... maybe Samsung might not have a case here."

 

[Sandybox]

Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.

The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.

So you are asserting that companies never use derivative designs, ever? Or use greater financial firepower to win cases, ever?

 

[Sunny1990]

Now apple copied Samsung (android phones) after introducing iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s plus