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

[marksman]

So when a touch screen phone takes the world by storm, such as the iphone did, of course everyone will implement touch screens.

Apple, how many ways do you expect a touch screen phone to look like? Apple is overreaching and it coms off to me that they think they should be the only ones able to use a pure touch phone

So apple invents the modern smartphone, a device that looks absolutely nothing like before it and none of their competitors can even come up with any ways to make their copycat products slightly different or unique?

From a consumer perspective I want the former to thrive and survive not the later. Apple made an entire device and os that was new yet nobody else could come up with any tangible changes or benefits? Especially Samsung? That seems crazy.

To say it is okay that apple created something wholly new and unique is not that big of a deal and Samsung should just be able throw their logo on it because it is too hard to come up with something new and unique is insane.

----------

Everyone's designs changed. Apple forgets that they call themselves "innovators". Don't innovators change the concept of products? Of course nobody is going to still design flip-phones.

I don't understand this. Apple single-handedly created the modern day smart phone market. By the way before the market was reborn under apple smartphones were over priced pieces of crap.

 

[marksman]

What I'd like to know is the amounts of each kind of phone (flip, candybar, touchscreen candybar) were sold before and after iPhone, as well as how many models of each kind were manufactured (e.g. there may have been one or two candybar touchscreen models before iPhone, but after iPhone, the market may have been flooded with them).

The thing people are missing is the lawer is pointing out how samsung's stylistic choices changed dramatically pre and post iPhone. Samsung derives the bulk of its phone revenue from smartphones now. So that some phones previously were not smartphones is irrelevant. It simply shows a cross section of stylistic choices by Samsung which turned into just copies of apple products.

As for those claiming this evolution was inevitable please remember that all phone oses were horrific before the iPhone and google was going down the same path. Moreso than the hardware apple created the first real phone os. Without them how long wound that have taken? 10 more years? 15 years? 20 years? Easily a minimum of 10 years. Which means we are still five years away from a phone with a usable os.

 

[marksman]

This argument could easily get absurd. Yes, mobile phones evolved after Apple introduced the iPhone. So did computing devices after the advent of personal computers. I can just imagine similar slides prepared by IBM showing HP infringement

You think those look the same or even similar? Time to sue your opthamologist.

----------

This is so stupid. Why doesn't this happen to TV manufactures? Or any other electronic space? This is what phones look like now Apple. Get over it.

I have TVs from five or six different makers and none of them look, function or interface the same. Your point is specious.

 

[Hyper-X]

I see a ton of Samsung phones all the time and they look nothing like my 4S. The button arrangement is different, the OS is different, not sure what Apple's trying to pull... perhaps patent the rectangle, patent touch technology, patent icons...

Instead of using millions of dollars on a stupid lawsuit, they could use that money to donate to a needy charity. Oh wait...

 

[nia820]

I see a ton of Samsung phones all the time and they look nothing like my 4S. The button arrangement is different, the OS is different, not sure what Apple's trying to pull... perhaps patent the rectangle, patent touch technology, patent icons...

Instead of using millions of dollars on a stupid lawsuit, they could use that money to donate to a needy charity. Oh wait...

This is what I don't get. When apple was complaining about galaxy s2 home button i didnt get it. Galaxy s2 original home button looked nothing like iphones. It was square and had sliver edges. But a judge ruled it did and samsung had to change the home button for USA release.

All of samsungs phones are thinner than the iphone and the plastic gives it a different look and feel.

And they complain about the rectangle design.what shape are touch screen phones supposed to be? Semi circle? Octagon?

 

[samcraig]

Because apple invented the iPhone and iOS and google and Samsung copied it.

Opinion.

 

[samcraig]

I have TVs from five or six different makers and none of them look, function or interface the same. Your point is specious.

Do you know what this lawsuit is about?

 

[Wicked1]

These companies suing everybody for everything is getting ridiculous.

Yes, I Agree Yawn, and a particular waste of money and resources

If they both want to waste money, then they can donate some to me, and the rest to Children's Hospitals or some good Charity

 

[linux2mac]

Speaking of the truth, if we get any out of this case, it will be a miracle.

Apparently, Samsung is a big believer in Inbox Zero. Backing up data, mmmmmmm, not so much.

What a coincidence that Samsung's inbox containing "relevant emails that would have helped Apple's case" was suddenly deleted. And what a coincidence that Samsung's products started to look like Apple's post iPhone release. Hmm......

It's pretty obvious Samsung copied Apple, yet only a select few continue to refute that with a straight face. Makes me wonder if Samsung would be low enough to send representatives onto this forum - then again they were low enough and bold enough to copy the hell out of Apple, so I suppose they would.

This thread is starting to remind of the BD thread when I proclaimed the death of BD back in 2010 in that forum. It was quite obvious then where physical media was headed and look now - all of the Apple copy cats are suddenly making laptops sans optical drives.

 

[BaldiMac]

didnt say that (if you read my rant), I said that invention is often more evolution of a foundation that came before it.

That's my point. Invention is ALWAYS an evolution of a foundation that came before it.

Apple innovated in the sense that they took what was out there, and evolved it into something sleek, sexy that people wanted to buy.

Then they took that and put up a silo around it, claimed they built it in a vacuum and completely by themselves, and said nobody can ever evolve anything based on it.

Which is exactly how they got there.

You are trying to equate the legal copying of ideas and use of other technology with alleged IP theft. It's not the same thing.

In my opinion, it's dirty, and it reeks of being a poor sport. Apple's ok with "evolving" tech for their own, but refuses to let anyone else do that from their own.

As a geek who's spent most of his entire life playing with computers and technology, I am insulted by apple's business practices, and the claim that they're the king of invention. The fact that they (in not so similar words) actually try and perpetuate amongst the "non geeks" this image pisses me off.

These "claims" you reference appear to be the claims of fanboys and strawmen, not actual claims made by Apple.

At the same time, you are trying to do the opposite. Write off "invention" as simply "evolution".

 

[Rogifan]

I see a ton of Samsung phones all the time and they look nothing like my 4S. The button arrangement is different, the OS is different, not sure what Apple's trying to pull... perhaps patent the rectangle, patent touch technology, patent icons...

Instead of using millions of dollars on a stupid lawsuit, they could use that money to donate to a needy charity. Oh wait...

I believe there are specific phone(s) Apple is claiming were copies of the iPhone. Like some of the early Galaxy S phones. If Samsung wants to talk about the F700 let's talk about it.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

 

[samcraig]

What a coincidence that Samsung's inbox containing "relevant emails that would have helped Apple's case" was suddenly deleted. And what a coincidence that Samsung's products started to look like Apple's post iPhone release. Hmm......

It's pretty obvious Samsung copied Apple, yet only a select few continue to refute that with a straight face. Makes me wonder if Samsung would be low enough to send representatives onto this forum - then again they were low enough and bold enough to copy the hell out of Apple, so I suppose they would.

This thread is starting to remind of the BD thread when I proclaimed the death of BD back in 2010 in that forum. It was quite obvious then where physical media was headed and look now - all of the Apple copy cats are suddenly making laptops sans optical drives.

If you want to say BD has declined IN computers - I will agree. But BD as a media for home has actually been on the rise.

And if Samsung has a policy - and can prove it's always been a policy (for email) then it's not a coincidence. It's SOP for them. No conspiracy so don't make it into one. You can call it not "smart" or that it looks bad for them ultimately.

As for Samsung sending in people to a forum - an Apple forum no less - is just ridiculous. How paranoid are you?

I believe there are specific phone(s) Apple is claiming were copies of the iPhone. Like some of the early Galaxy S phones. If Samsung wants to talk about the F700 let's talk about it.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/
Image
Image

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the image you are using isn't scaled correctly and therefor isn't exactly valid to your argument. Just wondering since it's been said a few times in this thread alone.

 

[G51989]

What a coincidence that Samsung's inbox containing "relevant emails that would have helped Apple's case" was suddenly deleted. And what a coincidence that Samsung's products started to look like Apple's post iPhone release. Hmm......

It's pretty obvious Samsung copied Apple, yet only a select few continue to refute that with a straight face. Makes me wonder if Samsung would be low enough to send representatives onto this forum - then again they were low enough and bold enough to copy the hell out of Apple, so I suppose they would.

Weather or not samsung directly copied Apple is up for the courts to decide. I personally think they went a little far with the orginal galaxy, but other than that. I see no issue.

As a consumer, if they want to waste money in court. Idc. I also would not, and don't care who copies who. If some company made a direct ripoff of the 4s, but it was better than the 4s. I'm gonna buy the copy, if its better. Because I don't care about faceless companies. Its a transaction, I get a product and a warrenty, they get my money in return. After that, I don't owe them a thing.

Also, really? Samsung plating people on random discussion websites? Uh.

Big companies like apple, samsung, google, microsoft ect. Do not give the slightest **** about places like this.

 

[BaldiMac]

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the image you are using isn't scaled correctly and therefor isn't exactly valid to your argument. Just wondering since it's been said a few times in this thread alone.

Just because it pointed out many times doesn't mean it's correct. Unless you have some sort of legal reference that shows that a small change to size or aspect ratio constitutes a significant enough change to avoid the design patent.

Scaling an image for the purpose of illustrating the design similarities doesn't make it invalid to the argument.

 

[KnightWRX]

I believe there are specific phone(s) Apple is claiming were copies of the iPhone. Like some of the early Galaxy S phones. If Samsung wants to talk about the F700 let's talk about it.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

I like this little tidbit from your biased source :

The entire aesthetic of the F700 interface is significantly different than either iOS or TouchWiz: the icons are monochrome and have unique designs, there's that cool X/Y highlight on the selected icon, there's a text label at the top. And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen:

Wait, why are we saying the F700's homescreen is different, but ignoring the fact that TouchWiz's homescreen is also "significantly different from iOS" :

Not to mention the piece completely misses what the trial and Apple's complaint is about. The F700 is relevent as Apple is claiming that it holds design patents and owns the basic design elements of their devices (section 25 of the complaint) :

The grid of icons, patent D790, filed Aug 20, 2007.

The basic rectangle with rounded corners and home button, patent D677, filed Nov 18, 2008.

Now, looking at the filing dates on these, it's no wonder Samsung is trying to get the F700 introduced as evidence. It pre-dates both of these and shares the few elements covered by these patents (god are these broad and simple. They're probably infringed on by just about every device out there, ridiculous).

Now, let's not get into trash tabloid journalism. You're a bright man, I'm sure you can dig a bit and understand the actual issues at heart here.

 

[djphat2000]

What does the mac os have to do with anything in this discussion?

I guess ignoring the questions I posted is an answer.

As to what it has to do with this discussion. It's simple. Who came up with it?
From the classic Mac OS up thru Mac OS X. Who's is it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html

I mean, what's a patent for if not to protect an invention? That's just SJ list (what has his name on it). From both companies, which in the end IS the same company (Apple bought NeXT).

My bigger point here is that Apple had (or aquired) all they needed to build the devices/software that we use. They didn't need to copy from someone else. And when they didn't have what they needed, they bought it or licensed it. When they didn't do it properly (buy or license), they got sued for it. So, this isn't anything new. If they win this court case against Samsung, what then? Are we still going to have this argument that Samsung didn't copy from Apple? Or that the case is BS, because we think so?.

I also find it funny that Samsung wants Apple to pay for a license on there 3G tech. When if they sold Apple the hardware needed to well, build the phone that will use there 3G technology. Why it wasn't included in the price of the sale? Like "here we will sell you this stuff at our agreed upon price. However, you have to license it with us as well..." So then Apple said, "no we are only going to buy it, have a nice day". Of which then Samgsung say's "well, OK then, see you soon for your next order. Pleasure doing business with you!".

 

[samcraig]

Scaling an image for the purpose of illustrating the design similarities doesn't make it invalid to the argument.

Actually it does. Because proportions are part of the overall trade dress argument.

Unless you have some sort of legal reference that shows that a significant change to size or aspect ratio constitutes a significant enough change to not avoid the design patent.

Isn't this what at least part of the case is about? Yes. It is. So misrepresenting the trade dress at the get-go is wrong. And Apple was called out on it when they did it. Have a lovely day.

 

[Oletros]

I also find it funny that Samsung wants Apple to pay for a license on there 3G tech. When if they sold Apple the hardware needed to well, build the phone that will use there 3G technology. Why it wasn't included in the price of the sale? Like "here we will sell you this stuff at our agreed upon price. However, you have to license it with us as well..." So then Apple said, "no we are only going to buy it, have a nice day". Of which then Samgsung say's "well, OK then, see you soon for your next order. Pleasure doing business with you!".

Why they don't have to pay for the 3G patents? Samsung doesn't sell Apple the 3G hardware.

 

[samcraig]

For those that insist that Samsung doesn't innovate - ever -and I am referring to a select few who state that as a flat out statement (and believe it)...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/02/samsung-starts-mass-producing-4x-faster-mobile-flash-memory/

When your iDevices start running a lightening speeds - I'm sure you'll still insist that Samsung had no part in it...

 

[KnightWRX]

My bigger point here is that Apple had (or aquired) all they needed to build the devices/software that we use. They didn't need to copy from someone else. And when they didn't have what they needed, they bought it or licensed it.

Same for Samsung. This isn't about software components/hardware parts. This is about patents, trademarks and trade dress. Things you can work very hard for years coming up with your own stuff and still infringe on.

When they didn't do it properly (buy or license), they got sued for it. So, this isn't anything new.

Yes, we know. Apple is "guilty" of it as much as anyone else in the industry. The way the patent system works, you can think what you did is clear and safe and you're hit with a patent lawsuit the next day. Patents over software are bad like that.

If they win this court case against Samsung, what then? Are we still going to have this argument that Samsung didn't copy from Apple? Or that the case is BS, because we think so?.

Obviously, a few will go on to say "See! Samsung did copy Apple!". Then those more grounded in reality will look at the decision, see what patents/trademarks/trade dress were considered infringing and not make broad and generalised statements about it.

Do we claim Samsung copied Apple because a Dutch judge ruled they infringed on the "bounce back on incomplete swipe" patent in the Netherlands even though he dismissed Apple's claims about the community design registrations ? Some do, those of us who understand the issues don't. A gesture patent over some small part of the stock applications doesn't call for broad "they copied!" accusations.

The question is more what camp will you be in ? Will you try to understand the decision, the patents, the trademarks and the trade dress involved, the extent of infringement, the remedies and damages awarded or will you paint it with the broad brush of "Samsung copied!" ?

I also find it funny that Samsung wants Apple to pay for a license on there 3G tech.

FRAND doesn't mean free. Nothing funny about it.

 

[chagla]

I see a ton of Samsung phones all the time and they look nothing like my 4S. The button arrangement is different, the OS is different, not sure what Apple's trying to pull... perhaps patent the rectangle, patent touch technology, patent icons...

Instead of using millions of dollars on a stupid lawsuit, they could use that money to donate to a needy charity. Oh wait...

A copy of iphone would be if Samsung made another device that has exact dimensions, materials, running the same IOS etc etc. basically everything is same as iphone except made by Samsung. Now what device does this?

On the other hand, the only thing Samsung phones and Iphone share is rectangular shape and both have touch screens. Everything else is different, different dimensions, materials and heck, they even run different OS. so how can these phones are "copy" of iphone? because they are rectangular?

i really don't understand this.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually it does. Because proportions are part of the overall trade dress argument.

Unless you have some sort of legal reference that shows that a significant change to size or aspect ratio constitutes a significant enough change to not avoid the design patent.

Isn't this what at least part of the case is about? Yes. It is. So misrepresenting the trade dress at the get-go is wrong. And Apple was called out on it when they did it. Have a lovely day.

I like how you turned that around on me without actually backing up your claim. I'm not claiming anything either way, so the burden isn't on me.

 

[KnightWRX]

A copy of iphone would be if Samsung made another device that has exact dimensions, materials, running the same IOS etc etc. basically everything is same as iphone except made by Samsung. Now what device does this?

On the other hand, the only thing Samsung phones and Iphone share is rectangular shape and both have touch screens. Everything else is different, different dimensions, materials and heck, they even run different OS. so how can these phones are "copy" of iphone? because they are rectangular?

i really don't understand this.

You don't understand it because people keep using the word copy, when this isn't Apple's complaint at all essentially. Apple is claiming patent, trademark and trade dress infringement. No copying is involved here.

Apple and Samsung can both have made their products completely unaware of each other and Samsung can still infringe Apple's patents, trademarks and trade dress if they happen to have come up with the same methods/designs as Apple without prior knowledge of Apple's work.

A lot of people don't understand IP well enough to make this distinction, so the conversation goes down to "Copy!" levels. Basically, anyone claiming "copying" can be dismissed as not quite understanding the issues at play here.

 

[Rogifan]

If you want to say BD has declined IN computers - I will agree. But BD as a media for home has actually been on the rise.

And if Samsung has a policy - and can prove it's always been a policy (for email) then it's not a coincidence. It's SOP for them. No conspiracy so don't make it into one. You can call it not "smart" or that it looks bad for them ultimately.

As for Samsung sending in people to a forum - an Apple forum no less - is just ridiculous. How paranoid are you?





How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the image you are using isn't scaled correctly and therefor isn't exactly valid to your argument. Just wondering since it's been said a few times in this thread alone.

What does scaling have to do with the fact that version of Touch Wiz looking just like iOS and nothing like the UI on the F700?

 

[KnightWRX]

What does scaling have to do with that version of Touch Wiz looking just like iOS and nothing like the UI on the F700?

TouchWiz looks as much like iOS as the F700 UI. Are you ignoring the home screen argument for TouchWiz but using it for the F700... on purpose ?

And you accuse others of being plants for Samsung ?