Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit Over iPhone Design Officially Reopened

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Oh the irony...Samsung makes phones with the better design these days...

You mean, "Samsung makes GRENADES with better design these days".

Fixed that for you.
[doublepost=1484358810][/doublepost]

I'm wondering if Apple and Sammy aren't already tired of this

Sammy is. Apple isn't.

And it shouldn't be.

 

[Jim Lahey]

I can't believe Apple are diverting their resources into this when their lawyers could be working on the Mac Pro. Tim Cook should be executed etc.

 

[69Mustang]

Anyone talking about rounded corners does not understand the comprehensive evidence in this case.

There is a ton of evidence against Samsung, and that's why Apple rightly won. In my mind there are three particularly damning pieces of evidence that came to light in the case:

1. By far the worst in my opinion is the design presentation where Samsung management had hundreds of slides, with each slide showing a specific design feature of their phone and how it compared to the iPhone. On almost every single slide is some sort of instruction from management to engineering to "make it more like iPhone". Over and over and over again, from hardware design to software features, to UI, and even down to the little things like color tint and icon orientation..."More like iPhone".
2. The internal Samsung memo that kicked off the whole effort to change their smartphones is replete with language about how they needed to stop what they are doing and copy Apple.
3. The memo from Google to Samsung where Google warned Samsung that the designs they were seeing from Samsung were way too similar to the iPhone. So even Google, Samsung's partner and Apple's competitor, felt that Samsung had gone too far in copying Apple.

My "favorite" story about Samsung:

One day in March 2011, cars carrying investigators from Korea’s anti-trust regulator pulled up outside a Samsung facility in Suwon, about 25 miles south of Seoul. They were there ready to raid the building, looking for evidence of possible collusion between the company and wireless operators to fix the prices of mobile phones.

Before the investigators could get inside, security guards approached and refused to let them through the door. A standoff ensued, and the investigators called the police, who finally got them inside after a 30-minute delay. Curious about what had been happening in the plant as they cooled their heels outside, the officials seized video from internal security cameras. What they saw was almost beyond belief.

Upon getting word that investigators were outside, employees at the plant began destroying documents and switching computers, replacing the ones that were being used—and might have damaging material on them—with others.

A year later, Korean newspapers reported that the government had fined Samsung for obstructing the investigation at the facility. At the time, a legal team representing Apple was in Seoul to take depositions in the Samsung case, and they read about the standoff. From what they heard, one of the Samsung employees there had even swallowed documents before the investigators were allowed in. That certainly didn’t bode well for Apple’s case; how, the Apple lawyers said half-jokingly among themselves, could they possibly compete in a legal forum with employees who were so loyal to the company that they were willing to eat incriminating evidence?​

Word salad is immaterial to the case in the article. The case you're talking about has been adjudicated. Do you have any thoughts on the current issue?

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

I don't understand why they can't forget this and move on. Bring on the iPhone 8 and Galaxy S8 and let consumers duke it out in the marketplace.

Apple's point is, there wouldn't BE an S8 if there hadn't been an S1 that was INDISTINGUISHABLE from the iPhone at a distance of two feet.

And they're right.
[doublepost=1484359123][/doublepost]

I can't believe Apple are diverting their resources into this when their lawyers could be working on the Mac Pro. Tim Cook should be executed etc.

Um, you do know the difference between a Lawyer and a Hardware or Software Engineer, right?

 

[Jim Lahey]

Sarcasm?

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Find it hard to believe that Apple hold so dear a design that is generations old. As if Apple need the money. They do themselves a disservice by squabbling over such an outdated device.

Remember when practically all PC's were Beige Towers? There was no squabbling amongst the companies then. Apple need to grow up and start producing quality Macs again instead of the catwalk fashion fodder currently offered.

They have. And the new MBP, iPhone 7 and iPad Pro, AirPods and the AppleTV are all MILES ahead of both the competition AND even their own previous version of those products.

But all Haters like you can do is whine, whine, WHINE!

 

[simonmet]

Every time I see someone with an Android on the home screen, I think it's an iPhone.

I can tell. The new Google Pixel however looks even more like an iPhone physically. They even copied having an aqua/turquoise wave-like background picture.

Software is quite different though.

 

[TomMcIn]

Samesong knew their "smart" phone sales were in the tank and flat out decided to copy the design and characteristics of Apples iPhone down to the sizes and radii of the corners. They already had the same basic design and just needed to make it look successful. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

I disagree, superficially they look similar, functionally they are worlds apart, a grid of icons and colors DOES NOT determine usability and experience, the apps behave and look completely different and that's what really maters. There a ton of products that look similar in appearance, just look at Google's Pixel, or HTC's phone, they look extremely close to iPhone, yet they each offer a different experience.

Google Pixel vs iPhone:

HTC vs iPhone

And you actually think that SUPPORTS your argument?
[doublepost=1484360809][/doublepost]

I can tell. The new Google Pixel however looks even more like an iPhone physically. They even copied having an aqua/turquoise wave-like background picture.

Software is quite different though.

Not surprised, considering it's a DECADE later.

 

[tooltalk]

This is the reason I will not buy products from Samsung. They are copy cats.

Well, that's ok. Apple is buying stuff from Samsung for you.
[doublepost=1484360979][/doublepost]

I'm wondering if Apple and Sammy aren't already tired of this

For Apple,it's all about saving face. After having been defeated wholesale in Europe and even forced to apologize to Samsung in the UK, it would be quite embarrassing to lose again in their own hometown. Fortunately judge Lucy Koh was there for Apple! and Obama came to rescue when he reversed Samsung's legal victory that would have ended the these expensive lawsuits years ago.
[doublepost=1484361158][/doublepost]

I don't understand why they can't forget this and move on. Bring on the iPhone 8 and Galaxy S8 and let consumers duke it out in the marketplace.

Apple isn't really all that interested in the market place. There is a reason why our bean counter in chief Tim Cook spends so much time talking about gay, energy, and all other feel-good social issues.
[doublepost=1484361320][/doublepost]

Can't believe this is still going on ... Samsung released a phone that looked like the iPhone after the iPhone was released. Phones prior to the iPhone looked nothing like it in the marketplace.

Now as memory fades, the judgements become less and less in favor for the one that changed the marketplace. So ridiculous.

Well, no. ever heard of LG Prada? LG winds in design dept.

 

[trifid]

And you actually think that SUPPORTS your argument?
[doublepost=1484360809][/doublepost]
Not surprised, considering it's a DECADE later.

Did you read my post? Superficially they look similar, heck all smartphones have some sort of rectangular shape, big screen and rounded corners and icon grid of some sort. Superficial cosmetic similarity doesn't matter, what matters is function, and that's where each platform varies significantly.

But you know, I would actually love Apple suing Google for rounded corners, rectangular shape and icon grid on the Google Pixel. That lawsuit would surely be fun. Bring it on!

 

[tooltalk]

It's illegal to copy implementations, not ideas. The problem that Samsung had is that it's basically a blatant copy. Look at the phone icon. There are an large number of ways to do a phone icon, so Samsung picked a phone icon with the same green and orientation as Apple did. Of course! Search on google images for "phone handset icon" and see the world of possibilities.

Why have the dock at the bottom? Why not put it on the side? Why aren't the icons the same size as Apple's?

Basically, they took as much of Apple's UI as they could because, you know, research is hard.

Samsung denialists say "no they didn't copy it." You can only say that if you don't know what came before the iPhone.

Kdarling did extensive expos'e on icon designs pre and after iPhone multiple times here on MacRumors. Yes, Samsung design dept really sucked -- even their own mgmt folks said so. But it's pretty lame when Apple denialists claim that Apple's icons's color and orientations were somehow unique or original. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
[doublepost=1484362022][/doublepost]

Samsung, the world most corrupted company ever. People buying samsung products are accomplices. Apple shouldn't also use any Samsung parts.

Apple was (and probably is) Samsung's largest customer.

 

[code-m]

The question here is, where is Apple planning on taking the iPhone design into the future. If we look at the bezel-less phones from Sharp and Xiaomi, and the curved displays from Samsung, Apples present offering looks like its stuck in 2010.

For the sake of argument lets just say that other manufactures have "copied" Apple. When the iPhone 2017 gets released are we going to say it looks like a Sharp, Xiaomi or even a Samsung. Then the shoes is on the other foot. My point being is that you can only do so much with a candy-bar shaped phone, until you start using flexible displays and batteries. I am afraid that with this case Apple may win the battle, however lose the war as their do not build displays and are left looking at LG, Samsung, Sharp to fill in those gaps. This means the iPhone will always look dated unless it does something radical for 2017.

 

[tooltalk]

Hey guys! One question:

I've been reading the Steve Jobs bio and this "stealing isn't right" put me thinking,

What was the arrangement between Apple and XEROX PARC in those times for when Apple coppied bitmapping, networking and object programing?

And, how did that arrangement (if there is any) make it so that it had a difference with what Bill Gates did when copying the same things from Apple for its software?

PLEASE!!! (???)

In short, Xerox paid to get Apple's pre-IPO stocks, but there was no licensing.

Microsoft was a legit licensee of Apple's UI.

Apple used MS for copyright infringement. Xerox got upset & sued Apple because Apple was scaring off potential Xerox licensees. Apple lost because Microsoft was a legit licensee of Apple's GUI; Xerox lost as well.

[doublepost=1484362616][/doublepost]

I agree with your argument, but the other problem here is that we're ignoring missed profits and bought time in the market. What Samsung did was sell iPhone copycats at much much lower margin than Apple does, which means that the missed profit opportunity for Apple was potentially much higher. The other thing that these calculations do not account for is that Samsung's steeling enabled them to stay alive and competitive in the market for years until they could figure out how to work around the patents and create their own iconic phone design. It's impossible to predict exactly what would have happened in the parallel universe where Samsung didn't copy Apple, but I suspect Apple would be sitting on $50 - $100 billion more in cash.

No. This was all covered during the first trial. Apple had no evidence that Samsung's smartphones caused lost sales for Apple. That was also in part Apple had supply issues that prevented Apple lawyers from making such absurd claims.
[doublepost=1484363129][/doublepost]

If this is a new case, I wonder if the prototypes that were not allowed in the original case, will be allowed?

The prototypes that Judge Koh didn't allow were trade dress part of the lawsuit. That trade dress suit was reversed by the appeals court a couple of years ago.
[doublepost=1484363323][/doublepost]

Anyone talking about rounded corners does not understand the comprehensive evidence in this case.

There is a ton of evidence against Samsung, and that's why Apple rightly won. In my mind there are three particularly damning pieces of evidence that came to light in the case:

1. By far the worst in my opinion is the design presentation where Samsung management had hundreds of slides, with each slide showing a specific design feature of their phone and how it compared to the iPhone. On almost every single slide is some sort of instruction from management to engineering to "make it more like iPhone". Over and over and over again, from hardware design to software features, to UI, and even down to the little things like color tint and icon orientation..."More like iPhone".
2. The internal Samsung memo that kicked off the whole effort to change their smartphones is replete with language about how they needed to stop what they are doing and copy Apple.
3. The memo from Google to Samsung where Google warned Samsung that the designs they were seeing from Samsung were way too similar to the iPhone. So even Google, Samsung's partner and Apple's competitor, felt that Samsung had gone too far in copying Apple.

My "favorite" story about Samsung:

One day in March 2011, cars carrying investigators from Korea’s anti-trust regulator pulled up outside a Samsung facility in Suwon, about 25 miles south of Seoul. They were there ready to raid the building, looking for evidence of possible collusion between the company and wireless operators to fix the prices of mobile phones.

Before the investigators could get inside, security guards approached and refused to let them through the door. A standoff ensued, and the investigators called the police, who finally got them inside after a 30-minute delay. Curious about what had been happening in the plant as they cooled their heels outside, the officials seized video from internal security cameras. What they saw was almost beyond belief.

Upon getting word that investigators were outside, employees at the plant began destroying documents and switching computers, replacing the ones that were being used—and might have damaging material on them—with others.

A year later, Korean newspapers reported that the government had fined Samsung for obstructing the investigation at the facility. At the time, a legal team representing Apple was in Seoul to take depositions in the Samsung case, and they read about the standoff. From what they heard, one of the Samsung employees there had even swallowed documents before the investigators were allowed in. That certainly didn’t bode well for Apple’s case; how, the Apple lawyers said half-jokingly among themselves, could they possibly compete in a legal forum with employees who were so loyal to the company that they were willing to eat incriminating evidence?​

Wake up, buddy. Apple lost everywhere, except in its hometown in San Jose. Even then, most of Apple patents asserted against Samsung have been either invalidated (eg, multitouch) or are lemon (eg, "slide-to-unlock").

After doctoring evidence to get injunction against Samsung's tablets in Germany, Apple lost completely on every single account. In the UK, Apple was ordered to apologize for their misleading campaign against Samsung.

 

[Tech198]

Apple's is on the war path... Can't they sign some sort of "preace-treaty" and end these silly battles ?

The same Apple did with MS..

You can probably say whatever Apple takes the iPhone in the future that will be where Samsung copies it as well... *roll eyes*

 

[tooltalk]

I remember Jobs' initial Keynote, demoing the original iPhone. Apple was still smarting from the B.S. judgment that Creative won against Apple's iPod for Apple SUPPOSEDLY copying Creative's "non-obvious" organization of Genre, Artist, Album, Song in their **itbox Music Player.

About halfway through the demo, Steve was ticking-off the innovations in the iPhone, and he looked at the audience and got one of those wry-smiles, saying "And you better believe that we have Patented this thing six-ways from Sunday!"

So, yeah, there wouldn't have BEEN a lawsuit originally if Apple HADN'T Protected SEVERAL aspects of the iPhone with both Design and Utility Patents.
[doublepost=1484358635][/doublepost]
OMG! STOP IT! JUST. STOP!!!

LOOK at those two images! DO you REALLY believe what you are saying?!?

Apple has always been an obnoxious litigator. The Creative lawsuit and discovery had they gone to trial would have revealed a lot about their theft, but Apple wisely settled. Considering their past legal practices, the Creative suit probably had little impact on their litigious behavior. Or their attitude towards patents -- it wasn't like they had original break-throughs or seminal wireless patents like Nokia or Ericsson had. Most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung likewise are junk patents either invalidate by PTOs around the world or thrown out of courts -- of course, except in Apple's home court in San Jose.

 

[wolfedude88]

My question is why this says United States and the Galaxy s1 they are using is an international variant, none of the US versions had the home button. Plus every picture I saw of this always had the GS1 on the app section to make it look more like the iphone. But yes they looked a lot a like.

 

[trifid]

For those buying the image below and being outraged and judgmental about Samsung, please see below.

The hypocrisy of Apple:

Without the Mac there would be no OSX, without OSX there would be no iPhone.

So, thanks Xerox. And Apple, please drop the lawsuit, stop being petty.

 

[StyxMaker]

I don't understand why they can't forget this and move on. Bring on the iPhone 8 and Galaxy S8 and let consumers duke it out in the marketplace.

It's the Steven Paul Jobs Memorial Law Suit.

 

[I7guy]

For those buying the image below and being outraged and judgmental about Samsung, please see below.



The hypocrisy of Apple:



Without the Mac there would be no OSX, without OSX there would be no iPhone.

So, thanks Xerox. And Apple, please drop the lawsuit, stop being petty.

The only salient point here in 2017, there is a continuing suit, with the outcome, tbd.

 

[Radon87000]

Where is the innovation Samsung has done?

Well for one Apple is ripping off Samsung with the curved edge screen and wirelessly charging on iPhone 8. Also you have Samsung to thank for the large screened iPhones otherwise we would still be stuck on 3.7

 

[StyxMaker]

Samsung should stop giving apple phone parts... Or supply them with Note 7 batteries.

Samsung is 'giving' phone parts to Apple? How nice of them.

 

[Taisiya]

my thoughts:

(1) the lawyers for both sides are getting paid no matter what

(2) get a bunch of 80-year-old who have never used smartphones and show them the iPhone and Samsung phones involved in this suit... see how many of them can or can't tell the difference

(3) if the next iPhone burst into flames, can Samsung sue Apple for fire copyright infringement?

 

[StyxMaker]

my thoughts:

(1) the lawyers for both sides are getting paid no matter what

(2) get a bunch of 80-year-old who have never used smartphones and show them the iPhone and Samsung phones involved in this suit... see how many of them can or can't tell the difference

(3) if the next iPhone burst into flames, can Samsung sue Apple for fire copyright infringement?

Only if they have a patent on exploding batteries.

 

[mtnDewFTW]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Apple invented rectangular shapes or that they invented icons. I think the fact that Samsung chose to copy every single aspect of the iPhone to a near perfect imitation is the reason this lawsuit has gone on for so long.

The way I see it is, the original artist of any song more than likely didn't invent every instrument that they used to perform the song itself. That doesn't mean that copying the entire beat and lyrics and publishing it as your own work is okay. This might not be a good example but how can you deny that Samsung saw Apples success and wanted a share of that for themselves.