Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit to Drag Into Eighth Year With Retrial Scheduled Next May

[deanthedev]

LOL... so basically Apple is crushing Samsung in the snob market. gotcha. I'm pretty sure Apple sells an iPhone model that is $349... not seeing how that fits your analogy. But whatever spin you want to put on it.

The one area Apple is crushing it is in profits, because they are able to sell stale designs they don't update often to people like yourself that gleefully open your wallet and pay premium dollar for them.

No spin at all - just standard practice among businesses looking for metrics to compare their performance against others. Apples to Apples, as they say.

Does this bother you so much you have to resort to insults? Implying “people like me” are somehow ignorant (or snobs) and that’s the only reason we buy iPhones? Why don’t we stick to facts? Like the fact most Samsung phones sold worldwide are sub $100 cheap phones. Or the fact the iPhone absolutely crushes phones like the S8 and Note 8 in sales.

 

[Geurt]

LG KE850 was announced and released before the first iPhone 2G. Even before then I was using Compaq iPAQ PDA that was the forefather to smartphones.

The iPhone was not presented and targeted as a phone, but as a communication -, internet - and music device. It was definitely a “one of a kind” but you are right when you say that there were more options that had one or two of these characteristics as well. But none had all.

 

[mwined]

Seriously......a fight over 7 year old tech thats obsolete and has cost millions in legal struggles. I have many pieces of tech that have rounded corners. Sorry apple, you didn't invent that. Add colorful icons to that. Guess they better sue nintendo, sony, and EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER.

Beyond ridiculous at this point.

It's not at all about how YOU feel NOW. It's about that point in time that the conflict occurred.

 

[convergent]

No spin at all - just standard practice among businesses looking for metrics to compare their performance against others. Apples to Apples, as they say.

Does this bother you so much you have to resort to insults? Implying “people like me” are somehow ignorant (or snobs) and that’s the only reason we buy iPhones? Why don’t we stick to facts? Like the fact most Samsung phones sold worldwide are sub $100 cheap phones. Or the fact the iPhone absolutely crushes phones like the S8 and Note 8 in sales.

If you have evidence of this crushing you speak of, then please share it. I've not seen it, so base my views on the data available.

The only thing I'm bothered by is people making ridiculous statements... like "literally crushed". It had nothing to do with the thread on a lawsuit, and is just some wild fan statement.

You are the one that impllied Toyota's are somehow beneath BMWs... and by extension Samsung phones beneath iPhones. So I called it the way I saw it... kind of goes along with the "snob" label. If you take it as a personal insult, that is on you... I never called you a snob. I called the market you described the "snob market". Up to you if you put yourself in it.

A lot of folks on here that aggressively take the side of Apple on any topic show zero objectivity and are ignorant about anything that exists outside of the Apple world. Case in point is several posts in this thread that seem to think smartphones didn't exist before Apple made one. Or that have never layed hands on a Samsung device but have concluded that are crap. I've used iPhones for years... I used other devices by Samsung, HTC, and others prior to the iPhone, and I now have a Samsung Android device. I believe I have an objective view of this stuff because I don't blindly defend any company. There have been products from Samsung and Apple that I have absolutely hated and loved on both.

That said, this suit is ridiculous to still be going on.

 

[JayIsAwesome]

Your post and thought process assumes that the world of Cellular phones and mobile technology exists in a Vacuum. I can assure you, it doesn’t.

You also assume that I fully side with Apple in the point of this tread (the lawsuit) I don’t. I see viewpoints on both sides as being valid. I do feel that some of the design aspects of the early phones are shockingly close to Apples first iPhone. Why not mimic the other Korean company that was shipping first, LG?

Apple has been working with Graphical user interfaces since before 1984, after a questionable interaction with Xerox from which Jobs got the idea. As hardware improved on computers, the OSs running on them gained more features over time. The same has happened on Smartphones, including ones running iOS. As hardware and batteries have advanced, Apple has brought over more of the features from OS X to improve the devices, including (but not limited to);

• Cut copy paste
• Multitasking
• Configurable wallpapers
• Widgets
• Base applications
• Bluetooth connectivity

In addition to that, Both Android and iOS have roots in Open source, and those communities have contributed to introducing new mobile software features over time. In fact, that community introduced many functions to early jailbroken phones before Android was even popular, including control center, some multitasking, widgets, etc.

Moving further away from the vacuum, many of the features on both platforms are actually licensed from 3rd party entities, with some inventions on our devices having come from some random sources that have nothing to do with cell phones. Take a trip into your device’s about page, to see just who invented many of the features on phones and mobile OSs.

On the hardware side, you are ignoring the normal evolution of technology, And how that side of the market works. Apple isn’t copying OLED screens from Samsung, they are buying panels from them. Bezels have been disappearing on Laptops, monitors, TVs, digital picture frames, etc for decades now. We are quickly moving to a world of science fiction where we simply have a surface where the technology itself is invisiable.

As an aside
The S-Pen you brought up, is an Active Pen who’s technology was invented by, and licensed to Samsung by Wacom. It is Wacom (and a few other patent holders) that deserve credit for Apple Pencil, not Samsung. In fact, Samsung has invested in Wacom to further it’s ties to some of their technologies.

The mobile stylus is something that Samsung, as Apple fans love to say in defense of Apple, perfected and made popular. The likes of the OLED Bezel-less somewhat curved display is something Samsung made popular and perfected. Hell nobody does a mobile screen like Samsung. Now the likes of Apple are ripping it off. Personally, that's whatever to me. Hell I like the Apple Pencil and I do hope it comes to the iPhone. And I can't wait to see how the OLED panel looks on the iPhone 10. But still this is the same Apple who once said "Who needs a stylus?" Like I said, you have folks who love to give apple a pass when it comes to stuff like this. Yet turn around and refuse to give the likes of Samsung or Microsoft credit for their contributions to the mobile world. Basically what I'm saying is Apple is full of ****. You can't sit up here get mad when your ideas are taken but then do the same to other companies. Apple Hardcore fans are also full of it. Wanna sit here and say things like "Apple did touch ID and now everybody is copying" yet those same folks will complete gloss over Apple stealing ideas from Android and putting them into iOS or ripping of Samsung's design or Microsoft's ideas. Apple just comes off as massive hypocrites in this whole thing. But whatev, I'm just patiently waiting for my iPhone 10 and trying to decide what color Apple Watch I should get. Leaning more towards Space Gray. It'll match my phone

 

[larrylaffer]

I really should have gone into IP law. You could retire after this case.

 

[theluggage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Palm Pilot had icons in rows in 1997.

Trouble is, this sort of thing is "cherry picking" individual aspects of the iPhone design that had already been seen in earlier phones, whether its "icons in rows", "rounded corners", "circular buttons", "no keyboard".

Samsung S, however, didn't pick cherries from the iPhone, it grabbed the whole ruddy cherry tree. If you look at the side-by-side picture on the original article, they don't look alike because the Samsung had "icons in rows" or "rounded corners" - they look alike because the Samsung has rounded corners and icons in rows and 3-d look shiny icons and a similar colour palette and 4 key functions on a grey bar at the bottom including a white phone handset on a green background and scrolls horizontally and a central, physical home button and similar packaging (I forget if that Samsung also had the 30-pin-iPod connector look alike, but their iPod-alike tablets certainly did because I've got a drawer of the things...).

Incidentally, that picture of the Samsung actually shows the Android App Drawer instead of the home screen (which looks less iPhone like) - however, that's not a dirty trick by Apple fanboys because the same view was typically used in phone dealer adverts and websites at the time... which was odd, because Android's customisable home screen with widgets is one area where it scores over iOS.

But, yeah, it is all ancient history now, because at some time it turned into a two-way street, with Android/Samsung features like Control Centre, task switchers and split screen (not to mention the whole phablet thing) cropping up in iOS.

...and, sorry, although I'm not sure there's any practical advantage, the current top-end Samsungs with no left/right bezels look far cooler than the iPhone X. The small top/bottom bezels on the Samsung are inconspicuous - the screen draws attention away from them - whereas the "notch" jarringly cut out of the top of the X's display just screams out "hey look, we couldn't quite hack bezel-free yet - wait for the XI!".

Sony had a thin, aluminium laptop well before Apple copied the idea.

Yeah (I even had one - the something-or-other 505) but you would never mistake it for a Macbook Air. It was more like the 12" rMB of its day - lots of sacrifices on connectivity, cramped keyboard etc. (although at least with the Sony the dock you needed to get all your connections back was included in the price!) whereas the Air (and the "ultrabook" machines that really copied it) was always relatively powerful and had a full-sized keyboard.

Of course, though, every laptop since 1991 has copied Apple's original Powerbook line, with the set-back keyboard and pointing device in the middle of the wrist-rest. The Powerbook Ti had a similar effect, as did the Unibody MacBooks - particularly the "chiclet"-style keyboard.

 

[kdarling]

But they did not look like that as much as Samsung did

Yes, that's true, and Samsung should pay appropriately.

nor did any of them have the design patents Apple do regarding the look and feel of the device.

Look and feel awards (trade dress) were thrown out, because the elements that Apple claimed, were functional, not ornamental. Functional design cannot be protected. E.g. the grid of icons was deemed unprotected by trade dress because Apple's own lawyers claimed they helped make it easier to use. Thus they were functional, not decorative. Ditto for flat screen and rounded edges.

Which begs the question: if all those were too functional for trade dress protection, how in the heck are they still valid for a design patent?

The awards being redone in this coming trial are for only three design patents:

- D618,677 - A flat rounded rectangular front, which was later invalidated (pending appeal) because it was deemed obvious in light of prior art... including an LG design, a Sony design, and a Samsung design. Not sure of its present status, but damages are apparently still part of the retrial.

- D593,087 - Rounded rectangle with bezel. Only a few models infringed.

- D604,305 - A colorful grid of 16 icons. All models infringed, even though that's not a Samsung homescreen like it is on the iPhone. On Android, that's an app drawer instead.

Samsung has given up fighting infringement at this time, but fought and won against the automatic award of all the profits for each phone that infringed a design patent. (As you can imagine, every company in the Valley was on their side, and Apple no doubt secretly was rooting for them too.) In other words, the idea that the infringing "article of manufacture" is always the entire device.

So this retrial is to determine what exactly is the "article of manufacture" that each design patent applies to, and recalculate the awards based that way. Note that it could still end up being the entire phone. Or it could be a percentage related to how much the infringed design contributed towards the whole smartphone design.

 

[theluggage]

I really should have gone into IP law. You could retire after this case.

...you'd be ready to retire after this case

 

[deanthedev]

If you have evidence of this crushing you speak of, then please share it. I've not seen it, so base my views on the data available.

The only thing I'm bothered by is people making ridiculous statements... like "literally crushed". It had nothing to do with the thread on a lawsuit, and is just some wild fan statement.

You are the one that impllied Toyota's are somehow beneath BMWs... and by extension Samsung phones beneath iPhones. So I called it the way I saw it... kind of goes along with the "snob" label. If you take it as a personal insult, that is on you... I never called you a snob. I called the market you described the "snob market". Up to you if you put yourself in it.

A lot of folks on here that aggressively take the side of Apple on any topic show zero objectivity and are ignorant about anything that exists outside of the Apple world. Case in point is several posts in this thread that seem to think smartphones didn't exist before Apple made one. Or that have never layed hands on a Samsung device but have concluded that are crap. I've used iPhones for years... I used other devices by Samsung, HTC, and others prior to the iPhone, and I now have a Samsung Android device. I believe I have an objective view of this stuff because I don't blindly defend any company. There have been products from Samsung and Apple that I have absolutely hated and loved on both.

That said, this suit is ridiculous to still be going on.

First off, I never said Toyota’s were “beneath” BMW’s. I showed that Toyota, as a company, makes many vehicles from low cost models to high end models. Just like Samsung does with their phones. And that it’s ridiculous to compare sales of products that are in completely different markets (a Corolla to a BMW instead of a Lexus to a BMW). Which is what the chart you linked to showed - total sales without any breakdown by market or cost. It’s a completely meaningless comparison.

Apple crushing Samsung in the market is relevant because the original intent of the lawsuit was to prevent Samsung getting a chunk of the market off IP that Apple feels it created. The lawsuit is no longer relevant because, in spite of Samsung copying, Apple still won. And they won by a mile.

Evidence of crushing? Samsung last reported Galaxy S sales in early 2014 (when Samsung was at its peak after the highly successful S4). At the time Samsung bragged about hitting 200 million sales. Over the same time period Apple sold 413 million iPhones. So Apple was already outselling Samsung 2:1.

Since then Apple sales continued to climb with numerous record quarters, including 3 holiday quarters of 75-78 million sales each. And during this time Samsung sales declined. For 7 straight quarters. So much so that Samsung has never ever reported sales figures for their Galaxy S Series.

Or we can go by ASP. Samsung ASP is in the low $200 range. Simple math proves that the Galaxy S and Note comprise a fraction of their total sales. As in 1 flagship for every 3 sub $100 phones. Even less if you include mid-range phones. There’s no way to spin the math with regards to ASP.

 

[Glideslope]

Well, at least I now understand why Bruce is retiring.

 

[gcmexico]

got him!!! LMAO

So now the issue is physical keyboards? Slowly the goal posts are moving.

View attachment 727488
View attachment 727482 View attachment 727483

 

[BruceEBonus]

Apple were the leaders and Samsung followed. Once upon a time.
But now that it's the opposite. It's twice upon a time.

 

[Delgibbons]

got him!!! LMAO

N800. January 2007. Internet browser and on screen keyboard. Still way later than my moto a1000 though

 

[dilbert99]

Smartphones did not look like that until Apple did it. AND Samsung had a whole strategy guide written up to copy the iPhone. That’s the point.

They looked something like this -

 

[Will do good]

Seriously......a fight over 7 year old tech thats obsolete and has cost millions in legal struggles. I have many pieces of tech that have rounded corners. Sorry apple, you didn't invent that. Add colorful icons to that. Guess they better sue nintendo, sony, and EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER.

Beyond ridiculous at this point.

I guess it's ok if other people steals your ideas.

 

[kdarling]

The rows of icons folks. How the OS looked and behaved. This is where the copying happened.

The UI behavior came from Android, not Samsung. As for the rows of icons, the Galaxy's real homescreen (not the cherry picked app drawer that Apple's lawyers used) looked different from the iPhone's:

It was Xerox Parc all over again...a redefinition of how we interfaced with the device (logically, not necessarily physically).

Not to anyone with knowledge of the past. Finger friendly buttons had been around forever in industrial touchscreen applications. Even the crowd-awing pinch zoom and flick scrolling predated the iPhone by decades.

The iPhone was shocking when it came out.

Not to those of us here who were in the telecom or handheld business, with NDAs so we could see what other companies were working on.

That Android was able to improve on the design is a testament to Google, but at the time Mr. Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, so I wonder (whether or not) how much he Microsofted out of Apple, Pirates-of-Silicon-Valley-style.

You can stop wondering, because that idea is ludicrous on so many levels.

First off, Schmidt didn't even attend Apple board meetings until October 2006 or so, and the iPhone was revealed in January 2007. Not much of an advantage there, even if he used it, and not even Jobs ever claimed such a thing.

More importantly, Jobs partly brought Schmidt on the board so he could get Google's help. Imagine the first iPhone without Maps, Search, Location or YouTube. Jobs had Google developers meet with Apple developers to create APIs for those services over Halloween 2006. So if there were any leaks, it was Jobs' doing.

After the iPhone was revealed, of course, there were no more secrets. This is the stupid part that this oft-repeated silly "spying" claim totally ignores. I think what has happened is that fanboys took Jobs' later 2010 infamous rant about multi-touch being stolen from him (as if! sorry Steve, Apple didn't invent that) and thought that somehow magically applied to 2006.

Bzzzt. Nope. Jobs was mad that Android finally turned on multi-touch years after the iPhone. Android had no choice, as Palm had it on their Pre. But Jobs was smart enough to avoid confronting Palm, because they had patents they could crush the iPhone with. (*)

In short, no sir. No such thing happened. In fact, quite the reverse. Schmidt idolized Jobs so much that he cut himself off from the Android group, and so Android actually got delayed by many months because he was not around to give that group the support they needed to go faster. And that was no doubt another reason Jobs invited him on the board. He took advantage of Schmidt's friendship, a typical Jobs behavior.

(*) Speaking of which: What the iPhone X borrowed from the Palm Pre

 

[williamyun7]

They started suing Samsung 7 years ago and now Apple is being sued so much by many other companies. Look who started first?

 

[convergent]

First off, I never said Toyota’s were “beneath” BMW’s. I showed that Toyota, as a company, makes many vehicles from low cost models to high end models. Just like Samsung does with their phones. And that it’s ridiculous to compare sales of products that are in completely different markets (a Corolla to a BMW instead of a Lexus to a BMW). Which is what the chart you linked to showed - total sales without any breakdown by market or cost. It’s a completely meaningless comparison.

Apple crushing Samsung in the market is relevant because the original intent of the lawsuit was to prevent Samsung getting a chunk of the market off IP that Apple feels it created. The lawsuit is no longer relevant because, in spite of Samsung copying, Apple still won. And they won by a mile.

Evidence of crushing? Samsung last reported Galaxy S sales in early 2014 (when Samsung was at its peak after the highly successful S4). At the time Samsung bragged about hitting 200 million sales. Over the same time period Apple sold 413 million iPhones. So Apple was already outselling Samsung 2:1.

Since then Apple sales continued to climb with numerous record quarters, including 3 holiday quarters of 75-78 million sales each. And during this time Samsung sales declined. For 7 straight quarters. So much so that Samsung has never ever reported sales figures for their Galaxy S Series.

Or we can go by ASP. Samsung ASP is in the low $200 range. Simple math proves that the Galaxy S and Note comprise a fraction of their total sales. As in 1 flagship for every 3 sub $100 phones. Even less if you include mid-range phones. There’s no way to spin the math with regards to ASP.

So no reference to the "literal crushing" ? I like how you conveniently group things to support your crushing, with no data to back it up. Just like you use a car analogy of brands vs manufacturers, and were selective in choosing them. Meanwhile, Samsung and Apple only have one brand of phones we are talking about. You are comparing models, not brands. Nevertheless I think most people would laugh you out of the room if you said BMW crushed Toyota at anything. They are both successful car manufacturers with many great products, the same as Samsung and Apple are both successful tech companies with many great products.

 

[zorinlynx]

Yes, rapists are also still prosecuted even when the victim is not attractive anymore. Thank God that is the way it works, your society would be terrifying and horrible...

Wow, I think this wins the prize when it comes to the most disturbing and inappropriate analogies.

 

[Phonephreak]

So now the issue is physical keyboards? Slowly the goal posts are moving.

View attachment 727488
View attachment 727482 View attachment 727483

Scary how this gets ignored by most everyone

 

[Mw0103]

Wouldn't companies use their corporate IP lawyers for this type of thing? While they may be loaded with RSU's they are typically salaried, no?

No. The in-house attorneys usually manage the litigation, but the day-to-day work and trial are handled by outside firms. Companies like Apple have far too much legal work to handle in-house.

 

[fyun89]

Marketing??!
Apple: We’re suing Samsung, buy our iPhones!
That’s not how marketing works, smh.

There is this thing called "noise marketing".

 

[deanthedev]

So no reference to the "literal crushing" ? I like how you conveniently group things to support your crushing, with no data to back it up. Just like you use a car analogy of brands vs manufacturers, and were selective in choosing them. Meanwhile, Samsung and Apple only have one brand of phones we are talking about. You are comparing models, not brands. Nevertheless I think most people would laugh you out of the room if you said BMW crushed Toyota at anything. They are both successful car manufacturers with many great products, the same as Samsung and Apple are both successful tech companies with many great products.

No data? You think that 200 million vs 413 million is made up?

http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...les-numbers-200-million-served-so-far-1227971

After that it gets a little more difficult since Samsung completely stopped reporting after this announcement.

https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_sales_hit_55_million_milestone-amp-24813.php

55 million in a hair over 1 year of sales. Hardly impressive compared to the 215+ million iPhones sold over the same time period. And 7.2 million out of 80 million were the S7? Of course, the S8 was available for a little over a week, so that would add a few million more. Proves my point that Samsung flagships represent a fraction of their overall sales.

Conveniently grouping? Hardly. The only way to meaningfully compare performance of companies is to compare products in similar categories. You’re the one who’s grouping things “conveniently” by including sales numbers of products that don’t compete with the iPhone against iPhone numbers. It’s beyond ridiculous.

 

[840quadra]

It’s won the majority, because of prior art and other reasons.
It shows what happens in America does not relate to outside America. As said this won’t set anything because of those reasons. Just business tactics.

It doesn’t matter what happens outside the US, if the laws here dictate what can, or can’t be sold here. It is also irelavent to other legal proceedings for similar cases here in the US, because US Judges and lawyers aren’t working within the legal confines of the EU, Japan, South Korea, etc.

It’s not like Samsung is innocent of similar lawsuits. Samsung plays these games too, and has worked to ban Chinese knockoffs from being imported in South Korea, and have banded together with LG to prevent sales of products from Siemens, Phillips and other companies because of patent disputes.

It’s a dirty game of chess.