Apple's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design

[Rodimus Prime]

Android meant there was suddenly a purpose/reason to add an expensive component like a capacitive panel to the bill of materials. The proliferation of Android devices then brought the cost down of capacitive panels.

Why would capacitive screens be dropping in cost if the only widely licensed smartphone software at the time (Win Mobile) didn't even support them? That makes no sense.

Technology improved. Capacitive touch screens were out there generally in a larger format. Multi touch and capative screens have around since the 80's. Cost keep coming down. Apple used them because they had come down in cost, and worked well enough. They did not have to deal with legacy device like WM did.

Do not forget the screens have been around for a very long time.

That let them jump over to better tech.

 

[Technarchy]

But multitouch it is not a patent that Apple has

Who do you think owns Fingerworks? Apple.

 

[Oletros]

Who do you think owns Fingerworks? Apple.

Fingerworks doesn't own mutltitouch.

 

[samcraig]

How is it not?

Because for Android to have any value - you have to pay for several of google's services. Manufacturers not only have to pay for these apps, but they also have to spend money on the development of their skins since all but a couple run stock Android.

If you want to split hairs - some of Android is indeed free. But that's not reality.

It seems like you know something that we don't. How much more to the story here do you know that the rest of us mere mortals do not?

Actually, it's not just that image but the products themselves. After Apple announced and released the original iPhone in 2007, every handset manufacturer blatantly copied the design and functionality of the iPhone. I personally can't remember seeing an iPhone-like handset before the iPhone.

So.... How about you enlighten us with more of this story, I'd like to hear it.

You said based on that image alone - for you the trial would be over. I don't know more than what's published. But I have been on a few juries. If a juror is going to make their decision up with opening statements or based on what the prosecution presents in one diagram vs listening to ALL of the testimony and then rendering their decision then they are not only denying the purpose of the trial in the first place and also diminishing the experience for themselves.

Have you read the actual court documents being released? I'd venture not. I've only skimmed them and I can already say that this so-called "court of opinion" on this forum is based more on pride and loyalty than it is on facts.

 

[boronathan]

Because for Android to have any value - you have to pay for several of google's services. Manufacturers not only have to pay for these apps, but they also have to spend money on the development of their skins since all but a couple run stock Android.

If you want to split hairs - some of Android is indeed free. But that's not reality.

Wait what? What apps do manufacturers have to pay for? And oems adding skins doesn't make Android not free.

 

[iOrbit]

one word for samsung in court:

Ouch.

 

[dasams]

"As we all know it is easier to copy than to innovate," he told the court. "Apple had already taken the risks."

How well is that argument going to hold up when it's easy to show how Apple copied and stood on the backs of several companies to produce the iPhone and other devices.

I wonder if Apple's copying PARC's GUI will come up? That was a blatant rip-off which S Jobs acknowledged. dave

 

[MacFather]

It's quite obvious Samsung copies Apple in almost everything:

Deleted.

 

[Oletros]

Wait what? What apps do manufacturers have to pay for?

Google services. But, in fact, they're not part of Android

one word for samsung in court:

Ouch.

Why?

 

[iLilana]

On the left is Windows Mobile, a stylus & keyboard based OS. On the right is Android, a touch-based OS. Hmm, wonder why they would look so different?

They look different because they admitted to copying apple hardware so they could put android on their phones. I don't think the first os on the samsung phones was android though. I may be wrong but I seem to remember it being an in-house product.

 

[Technarchy]

Fingerworks doesn't own mutltitouch.

Who do you think owns the gesture based recognition technology featured in Apple products?

 

[iLilana]

on the other hand...

Apple iMac vs. speaker Braun LE1

Image

Mac Pro vs. radio Braun T1000

Image

iPod vs. pocket radio Braun T3

Image

iPhone Calculator App (2007) vs. Calculator Braun (1977)

Image

it would be copying if the iMac was a speaker
the tower was a ...a radio or whatever that was
also neither calculator nor pocket radio was invented by braun.

this is a good example of the difference between inspiration and copying.

 

[samcraig]

Google services. But, in fact, they're not part of Android



Why?

True. But what Android phone is not going to partake?

Google makes money by licensing the Google Apps that come on (all) Android phones like Gmail, Android Market, Google Search, and GAPPS.

How many Android phones don't have these? Exactly.

 

[Oletros]

Who do you think owns the gesture based recognition technology featured in Apple products?

Who do you think that owns MULTITOUCH? And, have you looked at the Fingerwork patents?

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Do Braun's patents on their calculator still had validity? If so they could definitely sue Apple.

So its OK to "Steal" other peoples designs as long as the patent has expired? What happened to the spirit of "innovation"?

 

[guspasho]

Stop posting images that have been debunked multiple times. The old classic microphone icon for microphone is not something Apple invented. The gear icon for settings is not something that Apple invented. The text bubble icon for text is not something Apple invented. Pretty much all of the icons shown are obvious to represent the function of the phone. And did I see a maps comparison? Maps is software, provided by Google, I assume. Google copied Apple's map? About the only new thing that Apple did was make consumer gadgets into a premium item, and not just a functional item, and package them in a pretty box, instead of a regular cardboard box. What now? They own pretty packaging, and nobody else can make pretty packaging? Just like they own rectangles?

Look at that Google Maps image again. See the iOS-specific UI elements on the Samsung phone?

I agree the other stuff like text bubble and microphone are generic, but the packaging is definitely copied, and so is the home screen interface. Other companies have managed to avoid copying Apple in those things. The HTC Evo 4G has a completely different interface than Apple's rectangular arrangement of rounded square icons.

 

[Technarchy]

Who do you think that owns MULTITOUCH? And, have you looked at the Fingerwork patents?

Hmm. The lack of a substantive retort the first time was a hint.

If your goal is to just be a contrarian you can play that game alone.

----------

So its OK to "Steal" other peoples designs as long as the patent has expired? What happened to the spirit of "innovation"?

That's some serious reaching. Jobs was clear in saying that the iPhone 4S was inspired by Leica cameras. One would be hard pressed to directly compare an old Leica camera to an iPhone 4S in matters of trade dress.

No court in the world is going to allow someone to say the iMac compares to a speaker in matters of trade dress because no one is never going to mistake one for the other.

In Samsung's owns words, a big reason why there was Galaxy Tablet returns is because people thought they were an iPad.

 

[RichBoi99]

$$$$$

Samsung just paid for this years iPhone 6th Gen. and whatever else Apple comes out with this next year.

 

[sbrhwkp3]

Haha... looks like Apple's got a pretty good case.

 

[Oletros]

Look at that Google Maps image again. See the iOS-specific UI elements on the Samsung phone?

This is not a Samsung program, this is a photoshoped ad with a wrong program in it.

 

[cgc]

You could make this argument against anything that became popular. Compare transportation before and after the automobile was invented...wow they all look so similar. It's a natural progression.

 

[Oletros]

Hmm. The lack of a substantive retort the first time was a hint.

Can you understand that Apple owns some patents on multitouch gestures and some patents on multitouch screen manufacturing but hey doesn't own multitouch technology on smartphones as a whole

 

[Rogifan]

Wow looks like this site has become a Samsung fan site. Maybe the url should be updated to SamsungRumors.com then.

Why are people so worked up over this anyway? It's not like the world will come to an end (or even any of us being impacted) whatever the result of this trial.

 

[poloponies]

nice fair judge... refusing to let defense present their own defense... so much for fair and impartial courts?

Evidence has to be relevant to the case. Both sides present their intended documents and exhibits to the judge and they argue for/against its use at trial and the judge then decides. From the report it seems that the judge had previously denied its use, they asked her again and she again denied it. Happens every day in every trial.

You automatically assume the judge is doing something improper but you have no real idea what's happening. You can't just bring whatever you want into court and show it to a jury without the other side being allowed to challenge its use - that's not how our courts work.

 

[rjohnstone]

Who do you think owns the gesture based recognition technology featured in Apple products?

Several companies hold the patents behind the technology... Apple being one of them via their purchase of Fingerworks.
And these are for a handful of gestures, not the underlying multitouch technology itself.