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

[samcraig]

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.

You made two claims. And they were definitely pointed.

1. Just because it pointed out many times doesn't mean it's correct.

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

And thanks

 

[poloponies]

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.

And trade dress is about taking advantage of someone else's product recognition. The classic example is the Coca Cola bottle. Coca Cola has spent countless millions over a century to develop consumer recognition and good will. If I start "Joker Cola" and use an identically shaped hourglass bottle they would have a right to protect that shape because a consumer makes associations with that shape that drive their purchasing decisions. The consumer may think he's buying a new Coca Cola product, for example. The fact that "Joker Cola" makes a sale by fooling consumers into a subconscious (or conscious) purchase is a violation of Coca Cola's protectable interests.

As has been pointed out, patent infringement on complex technological devices is not about identical copying, it's about undermining protected technology rights.

 

[Rogifan]

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 ?

Excuse me? When did I accuse anyone of being plants for Samsung?

But I do find it curious that some folks spend so much time defending [insert company name here] on an Apple fan site.

 

[KnightWRX]

But I do find it curious that some folks spend so much time defending [insert company name here] on an Apple fan site.

Maybe you're mistaking "defending [insert company name here]" for "debunking FUD levied against other industry players" and you're very much mistaking Macrumors as "an Apple fan site".

I'm not a fan of Apple. I'm a user of their products. I have no incentive to lie and distort truth in their advantage, I owe them nothing. Same for any other entity. I try to be as objective as possible and try to research things for myself and understand the issues at play, the real issues, not the media/fan distorted issues passed on as "truth".

Now, what do you say about my previous post about the homescreens ? The one showing the duality of your argument against the F700 ? You're applying criteria to dismiss the F700 that you're not applying to TouchWiz. Why ?

 

[Oletros]

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?

Touchwiz is not part of the trial

 

[roadbloc]

Those "after" iPhone Samsung phones are exactly like iPhones. Hard to distinguish...

They run Android and built Android specifics, unlike the "before" lot which were for Win Mobile 6 I think, a phone OS which wasn't touch orientated. There ain't much you can do in the terms of hardware design when the UI is touch based, other than have a large area of touchscreen. The radical differences are under the case.

Samsung never copied. Google may have done with their Android UI (although 4.1 JB looks nothing like iOS 6). But it is the fact that the phones are black and have a grid of icons on them, that makes them look so similar to the iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

You made two claims. And they were definitely pointed.

1. Just because it pointed out many times doesn't mean it's correct.

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

And thanks

Are you just arguing semantics? Neither of those claims are controversial. The question is to what degree changes in size/aspect ratio impact the application of a design patent. You claim that the changes in the picture were enough to make the picture invalid to the argument. I asked for evidence for this claim. I don't know either way.

To me, if I patented a design for a sofa and somebody built the exact same sofa to 2x scale, two photos of the sofas scaled to the same size would be germane to my argument that the larger sofa infringed on my design patent. If I'm wrong, I'm just asking for some sort of evidence to that effect.

 

[samcraig]

Are you just arguing semantics? Neither of those claims are controversial. The question is to what degree changes in size/aspect ratio impact the application of a design patent. You claim that the changes in the picture were enough to make the picture invalid to the argument. I asked for evidence for this claim. I don't know either way.

To me, if I patented a design for a sofa and somebody built the exact same sofa to 2x scale, two photos of the sofas scaled to the same size would be germane to my argument that the larger sofa infringed on my design patent. If I'm wrong, I'm just asking for some sort of evidence to that effect.

Do you sincerely believe that the Samsung products in question look 100 percent like the iDevices? Because your scenario says "exact same"

I ask sincerely - because from that scenario - it might be that you're not understanding the claims of the case and what's being argued. I don't say that condescendingly. Sincerely. I'm just questioning how much you know about the case.

 

[kdarling]

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?

Modern smartphones were around long before Apple, and the iPhone COULD NOT EXIST without them.

Other companies had spent decades and tens of billions creating the entire cellular infrastructure, market, radio chips and software, displays, and the base requirements of a smartphone, from apps to common features.

Heck, the first iPhone was dependent on the WiFi and cell hotspot locations that had been gathered by previous smartphones using Google Maps with GPS for years before Apple came out with their location crippled (GPS-less) iPhone.

Using a automobile analogy (yes, I hate these), everyone that went before Apple had created the core of a modern automobile from general shape to engine layout, plus the roadways and gas stations and refineries.

Apple took 95% of that decades long design base, added fins and power steering, and sold millions. If they hadn't, someone ese would've before long. So yes, they deserve protection for their particular design, and for popularizing that, but no credit for inventing the basic smartphone or even helping out for decades. They waited until the hardware and market was ripe from the work of others, before coming in themselves with no legacy support to worry about. Smart, yes, but hardly pioneering.

By the way before the market was reborn under apple smartphones were over priced pieces of crap.

I disagree. At the time, many of us were using touchscreen phones with 3G, GPS, Slingplayer, Google Maps (yes, that came before the iPhone), nice third party browsers, apps though an app market (Handango) or our own, video, MMS, VoIP, etc.

( ... F700 ...)

Looking at page 9 of the last (06/30/2012) order in the list on this page, it appears that Apple wants the F700 to be declared as infringing their trade dress:

"In order to establish dilution of the iPhone trade dress, which was announced in January 2007 and released in June 2007, Apple must show that its product was “famous” as of November 2007, when Samsung released the Samsung F700, the accused product." - order denying Samsung's motion for summary judgement

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

The company that owns the Visual Voice Mail patents don't sell hardware either, but everyone (including Apple) pays them to have VVM

 

[BaldiMac]

Do you sincerely believe that the Samsung products in question look 100 percent like the iDevices? Because your scenario says "exact same"

Nope. Stop arguing strawmen. It was an analogy to illustrate a specific point that we were discussing.

I ask sincerely - because from that scenario - it might be that you're not understanding the claims of the case and what's being argued. I don't say that condescendingly. Sincerely. I'm just questioning how much you know about the case.

And, again, you are simply avoiding the question.

 

[boronathan]

Do you sincerely believe that the Samsung products in question look 100 percent like the iDevices? Because your scenario says "exact same"

I ask sincerely - because from that scenario - it might be that you're not understanding the claims of the case and what's being argued. I don't say that condescendingly. Sincerely. I'm just questioning how much you know about the case.

Samcraig, i believe baldimac is asking for evidence of your statement that the scaling of the pictures is enough to invalidate the claim. Where is the proof that that is true?

Maybe a precedent, maybe a statement by the judge? I don't believe the scaling invalidates apples claim by itself (other things might).

The scaling was done to show similarities between the devices not to fool the courts, because presumably they'll look at the actual devices and not make a decision based on pictures.

The scaling won't invalidate apples claim, if it would i don't think we'd be at a trial.

 

[BaldiMac]

Samcraig, i believe baldimac is asking for evidence of your statement that the scaling of the pictures is enough to invalidate the claim. Where is the proof that that is true?

Maybe a precedent, maybe a statement by the judge? I don't believe the scaling invalidates apples claim by itself (other things might).

The scaling was done to show similarities between the devices not to fool the courts, because presumably they'll look at the actual devices and not make a decision based on pictures.

The scaling won't invalidate apples claim, if it would i don't think we'd be at a trial.

Thanks! Sometimes it helps to rephrase the question.

 

[samcraig]

Samcraig, i believe baldimac is asking for evidence of your statement that the scaling of the pictures is enough to invalidate the claim. Where is the proof that that is true?

Maybe a precedent, maybe a statement by the judge? I don't believe the scaling invalidates apples claim by itself (other things might).

The scaling was done to show similarities between the devices not to fool the courts, because presumably they'll look at the actual devices and not make a decision based on pictures.

The scaling won't invalidate apples claim, if it would i don't think we'd be at a trial.

I don't think anyone here knows why the scaling was done. It might have been a clerical error. It might have been a deliberate act on behalf of Apple to skew the reader of the court documents they appeared to immediately look at the size and shape and determine it was too similar.

I refer to my previous comment though "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"

I never claimed the court case or trade dress case would be decided on this. I said - quite purposely - that it wasn't EXACTLY valid to the OPs argument. And it wasn't just scaling. One screen shows the app drawer and one the home screen.

I find the conversation interesting though in general re:copying, evolving, etc. Very chicken/egg.

You have other smart phone vendors who had products either in the pipeline, announced or even in the marketplace. Many that shared the same form factor as the iPhone. After the iPhone, it's being argued that Samsung copied the iPhone. But if they already had form factors in the pipeline and/or a similar style (I am not saying the F700 looks exactly like an iPhone) then how valid or invalid is Apple's claim to trade dress.

As for the sofa scenario - which was a poor one - but I'll build on that. It's as if someone built a sofa and then another manufacturer built a sofa that looked a lot like the other one - but it was longer, had a different and clear logo on it and wasn't a 1:1 match (it was built with different materials, the pillows had piping instead of being plain)... is that enough to be different. or not?

I look at the phones and I see similarities for certain. I don't see enough for customer confusion.

When people want an iphone - they want an iPhone. Just like when they wanted an mp3 player - they wanted an iPod - no matter how many "knockoffs" there were.

In my opinion, Samsung is not hurting Apple sales because they look similar. They are hurting Apple's sales because not everyone wants an iPhone or to be in their ecosystem. Some want and enjoy Android. And some fell into Android originally (and now stay with what they know) because at the time - the iPhone wasn't on their carrier. And I am sure other reasons.

My. 02.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't think anyone here knows why the scaling was done. It might have been a clerical error. It might have been a deliberate act on behalf of Apple to skew the reader of the court documents they appeared to immediately look at the size and shape and determine it was too similar.

I refer to my previous comment though "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"

I never claimed the court case or trade dress case would be decided on this. I said - quite purposely - that it wasn't EXACTLY valid to the OPs argument. And it wasn't just scaling. One screen shows the app drawer and one the home screen.

I find the conversation interesting though in general re:copying, evolving, etc. Very chicken/egg.

You have other smart phone vendors who had products either in the pipeline, announced or even in the marketplace. Many that shared the same form factor as the iPhone. After the iPhone, it's being argued that Samsung copied the iPhone. But if they already had form factors in the pipeline and/or a similar style (I am not saying the F700 looks exactly like an iPhone) then how valid or invalid is Apple's claim to trade dress.

As for the sofa scenario - which was a poor one - but I'll build on that. It's as if someone built a sofa and then another manufacturer built a sofa that looked a lot like the other one - but it was longer, had a different and clear logo on it and wasn't a 1:1 match (it was built with different materials, the pillows had piping instead of being plain)... is that enough to be different. or not?

I look at the phones and I see similarities for certain. I don't see enough for customer confusion.

When people want an iphone - they want an iPhone. Just like when they wanted an mp3 player - they wanted an iPod - no matter how many "knockoffs" there were.

In my opinion, Samsung is not hurting Apple sales because they look similar. They are hurting Apple's sales because not everyone wants an iPhone or to be in their ecosystem. Some want and enjoy Android. And some fell into Android originally (and now stay with what they know) because at the time - the iPhone wasn't on their carrier. And I am sure other reasons.

My. 02.

A lot more words. Still avoided the question that I asked. Is the difference in size/aspect ratio between the iPhone and the Samsung phone relevant to whether or not the design patent was infringed? If you don't know, that's fine.

Again, I do not know the answer. I am not implying that this picture proves anything other than that the phones look very similar when scaled to the same size. I don't not know enough about the law around this case to have an informed opinion on who should win.

All I'm asking is for evidence to support an answer to a straigtforward question based on your claim.

 

[samcraig]

A lot more words. Still avoided the question that I asked. Is the difference in size/aspect ratio between the iPhone and the Samsung phone relevant to whether or not the design patent was infringed? If you don't know, that's fine.

Again, I do not know the answer. I am not implying that this picture proves anything other than that the phones look very similar when scaled to the same size. I don't not know enough about the law around this case to have an informed opinion on who should win.

All I'm asking is for evidence to support an answer to a straigtforward question based on your claim.

To be blunt - I don't care if I answered your question or not to your satisfaction. We've gone in circles before and it gets old. Fast. That's why I addressed my answer to boronathan and not you.

 

[Trekorvar]

Motorola A1000 from year 2004

http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a1000-653.php

 

[djphat2000]

Apple made the Apple Newton and Apple did coin the term "PDA" so I guess you could argue that Apple invented PDAs and the Newton was the first PDA. Although the technology and the vision for such devices pre-date the Newton and even Apple itself.

Regarding the Mac OS, do you mean OSX or Mac OS (classic)?
If you mean Mac Os as in pre-OSX then you should read up on some history. Apple "slavishly copied" GUI technology pioneered by Xerox PARC.
And without UNIX OSX would not exist.

Not sure what you mean by the "vision" for such devices. I have visions all the time, and while i think they are complete and total break throughs. They alas have not been patented (I dare not share!!)

As far as OS's go, I mean both. I don't see a Xerox PC out there (nor have I ever), with there OS on it. So, if there was any beef between those two companies. Well, history shows us that both Apple and Microsoft are not suffering due to it. They both continued to make there OS's and go in the directions they both saw as the best way to go. It is fair to say that without Xerox, that maybe we don't get a mouse based computer with a GUI. At least maybe not for some time or maybe something else gets invented that while it may sound strange to us now in hindsight. Would have changed the world back then. It's possible, but that doesn't mean Apple didn't invent anything that went into the OS they built off of the stuff they saw at Xerox.
I highly doubt it was "hey can I put a floppy in that computer of yours, yeah I just want to make a back up of everything I see here, thanks......." And several months later "whammo" Mac OS, the Mac and the Lisa are born.

As far as Unix and NeXT and OS X are concerned. Apple pays for whatever licenses they need to for there OS X software to work (that they didn't come up with on there own). Its included in the price of the OS, and sold to you and me. What they come up with that's unique or their own software. They patent it (I'm sure), and its also included in the price of the OS when purchased. They didn't come up with Unix, but they did add on top of it. Your not running a CLI all day on our Mac (I'm sure you can though). If they have to pay for a license for that they must be (Haven't heard of anyone suing them over OS X yet).

As far as the iPhone goes. Apple had all they needed to make one. They had an OS they could use (OS X) which included all they needed to make software to run on the phone. They already know how to design. So, they came up with that too, as we can see in their prototypes. They sourced the hardware they needed from the vendors that made it. They paid for it all, and they patented what they created to make it all work. They paid to have another company fab it, and ship it and they marketed it, and sold it. That's generally how its done.

Now, they feel that one of there vendors is copying them. So they sued. And I am hoping, Apple wins.

 

[KnightWRX]

Looking at page 9 of the last (06/30/2012) order in the list on this page, it appears that Apple wants the F700 to be declared as infringing their trade dress

It was removed from the complaint once Apple found out it pre-dated the iPhone release. This was a few days ago. I can't find a legitimate reference, only blog posts about it.

 

[boronathan]

I don't think anyone here knows why the scaling was done. It might have been a clerical error. It might have been a deliberate act on behalf of Apple to skew the reader of the court documents they appeared to immediately look at the size and shape and determine it was too similar.

I refer to my previous comment though "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"

I never claimed the court case or trade dress case would be decided on this. I said - quite purposely - that it wasn't EXACTLY valid to the OPs argument. And it wasn't just scaling. One screen shows the app drawer and one the home screen.

I find the conversation interesting though in general re:copying, evolving, etc. Very chicken/egg.

You have other smart phone vendors who had products either in the pipeline, announced or even in the marketplace. Many that shared the same form factor as the iPhone. After the iPhone, it's being argued that Samsung copied the iPhone. But if they already had form factors in the pipeline and/or a similar style (I am not saying the F700 looks exactly like an iPhone) then how valid or invalid is Apple's claim to trade dress.

As for the sofa scenario - which was a poor one - but I'll build on that. It's as if someone built a sofa and then another manufacturer built a sofa that looked a lot like the other one - but it was longer, had a different and clear logo on it and wasn't a 1:1 match (it was built with different materials, the pillows had piping instead of being plain)... is that enough to be different. or not?

I look at the phones and I see similarities for certain. I don't see enough for customer confusion.

When people want an iphone - they want an iPhone. Just like when they wanted an mp3 player - they wanted an iPod - no matter how many "knockoffs" there were.

In my opinion, Samsung is not hurting Apple sales because they look similar. They are hurting Apple's sales because not everyone wants an iPhone or to be in their ecosystem. Some want and enjoy Android. And some fell into Android originally (and now stay with what they know) because at the time - the iPhone wasn't on their carrier. And I am sure other reasons.

My. 02.

I agree that no one knows the purpose of the scaling, but a clerical error seems unlikely. With all the attention the pictures got, if it was a clerical error, Apple would have just refiled the docs. As for deliberately trying to skew the court, again unlikely. Because at some point, they're going to look at the actual devices. The jury is going to be able to see, maybe hold both devices and make their decision based on tangible evidence not a picture.

Apple only has to convince nine people that they look the same. I think people forget that the people who post on internet forums are NOT the ones who confuse the iPhone with Samsung devices.

I can see less informed customers being confused or swayed by an "it's just like an iPhone" sales pitch.

I personally don't believe they look the same, but I'm not the average consumer.

 

[djphat2000]

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

Because if its in the hardware they "buy" (from another vendor that incorporates parts of Samsung's patents in there hardware that they then build and resell to Apple or any other vender for that matter), it should already have been paid for as part of that purchase.

 

[BaldiMac]

To be blunt - I don't care if I answered your question or not to your satisfaction. We've gone in circles before and it gets old. Fast. That's why I addressed my answer to boronathan and not you.

That's fantastic! I was under the impression that multiple replies on a topic were an attempt at a discussion. Didn't realize that we have some sort of personal feud.

samcraig: That picture isn't valid to the argument because the phones are scaled.
me: Any evidence that the the changes in size/aspect ratio is enough to invalidate the design patent?
samcraig: Proportions are part of the trade dress argument.
me: I was asking for some sort of evidence to back up that claim.
samcraig: [non-condescendingly] You don't appear to know what this case is about.
me: Okay. I don't claim to be an expert on this case. I'm just asking a question based on your claim.
samcraig: I'm not talking to you anymore.

WTF?

 

[KnightWRX]

As far as the iPhone goes. Apple had all they needed to make one. They had an OS they could use (OS X) which included all they needed to make software to run on the phone. They already know how to design. So, they came up with that too, as we can see in their prototypes. They sourced the hardware they needed from the vendors that made it. They paid for it all, and they patented what they created to make it all work. They paid to have another company fab it, and ship it and they marketed it, and sold it. That's generally how its done.

Samsung also did all that. They had an OS they could use (Android) which included all they needed to make software to run on the phone. They already know how to design. So they came up with that too, as we can see in their prototypes. They sourced the hardware they needed from the vendors that made it and used their own semi-conductors expertise (NAND and SoCs). They paid for it all, and they patented what they created to make it all work (Samsung is the 2nd largest for patents granted in a year for quite a few years in a row, Apple being very far behind in that race). They paid to fab it, and ship it and they marketed it, and sold it. That's how it's generally done like you say.

This lawsuit isn't about Samsung's effort or lack thereof. It's about patents. Design patents, Trademarks and Trade dress. None of those remove any efforts Samsung or other vendors made to get from a drawing to a shipping product. The effort is the same.

As for you wishing Apple wins, I sure hope not. Their design patents are especially broad and all encompassing, which could send back smartphone design to the dark ages. It would almost be as bad as if Oracle had gotten API specifications copyrightable. Thank god Google won that particular battle, not for themselves, but for the whole industry at large.

----------

Because if its in the hardware they "buy" (from another vendor that incorporates parts of Samsung's patents in there hardware that they then build and resell to Apple or any other vender for that matter), it should already have been paid for as part of that purchase.

Depends on if the seller is allowed to also license the patents in question. Some vendors chose to only sell the parts and leave the licensing to the buyer, which then has to acquire the necessary patent licenses from the patent pools.

Apple has failed to do so over 3G technologies from Nokia, Motorola and Samsung and keeps arguing that the terms under which the licenses are offered to them are not FRAND compatible (what a coincidence that 3 vendors with patents that require FRAND licensing ask for "exhorbitant licensing prices" don't you think ? Apple sounds like a broken record sometimes...).

 

[poloponies]

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

They're called "licenses*" and they are generally part of the hardware purchase. If I order 1,000 3G chips from vendor "X" (assuming vendor X either owns or licenses the patent from the owner) then the sale generally includes the license for the applicable technology.

Let me put it another way. I create a new, unique and patentable wireless technology "12G". I don't care to build the device myself, I'd prefer to license the technology to Chipmaster, Inc. and collect a royalty payment for each device they make and sell. If Chipmaster sells chips to SmartestPhone, Inc. for use in their phones, it usually includes the license to the use of the patent. I don't have the right to sue SmartestPhone for unlawful use of my chip.

*A license is a piece of what you own. If I own a patent and sell that patent to you, then I no longer own it. If I license it to you then I create a set of rules by which you can use it, and allow others to use it, without giving up my ownership rights. But I can't both license it and challenge its use (unless the use falls outside that which is permitted under the license).

 

[KnightWRX]

They're called "licenses*" and they are generally part of the hardware purchase. If I order 1,000 3G chips from vendor "X" (assuming vendor X either owns or licenses the patent from the owner) then the sale generally includes the license for the applicable technology.

That again depends on the licensing term your vendor has with the patent owner. Not every license is transferable and again, this has been industry standard practice, some vendors leave you to deal with the licensing of the technology to use the chip you bought.

Some multi-radio chips are kept cheaper that way. You buy the silicon but no patent license. Now, since you're going to only use a few of the supported radios on the silicon, you can then only license those few patents instead of having to pay for a broad license covering all the radios in the chip you will not be using.

Makes much more sense to me. Keeps components cheaper and enables bigger margins and less waste of money on licensing fees.

Anyway, moot point, Apple has been wrong in the past on this subject, they need to pay for the rights to these technologies no matter what you guys want to believe :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403459,00.asp

 

[samcraig]

No feud. Relax. I just don't have the time or energy to go back and forth with you on something we'll never agree on. Given past discussions on other topics, I hardly think you could argue that point. And impasse is an impasse. I'm "sorry" I left the conversation with you feeling "unsatisfied"

That's fantastic! I was under the impression that multiple replies on a topic were an attempt at a discussion. Didn't realize that we have some sort of personal feud.

samcraig: That picture isn't valid to the argument because the phones are scaled.
me: Any evidence that the the changes in size/aspect ratio is enough to invalidate the design patent?
samcraig: Proportions are part of the trade dress argument.
me: I was asking for some sort of evidence to back up that claim.
samcraig: [non-condescendingly] You don't appear to know what this case is about.
me: Okay. I don't claim to be an expert on this case. I'm just asking a question based on your claim.
samcraig: I'm not talking to you anymore.

WTF?