Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

[keysofanxiety]

So you are asserting that companies never use derivative designs, ever? Or use greate financial firepower to win cases, ever?

Of course I'm not asserting that. I'm stating the historical fact of what Samsung are like as a company. I'm stating the fact that every other company is siding with Apple on this.

That and the 132 page internal document Samsung had, saying how they needed to copy every single feature of the iPhone, cause their UI sucked.

But hey, easier to hate on Apple, right?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.

The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.

I feel like it's important to show all phones, not just Samsung phones, before and after the iPhone.

I think there's a stronger case to be had that Android copied iOS than that Samsung copied the iPhone. The iPhone's distictive hardware was the one button and the lock switch. Samsung didn't copy that. - they always littered the phone with extra physical buttons. All Samsung did was make the screen a touch screen and do away with the keyboard - but that's what every phone's hardware shifted to once Android made touch a key feature and deprecated physical keyboards.

 

[Jsameds]

Samsung copying Apple is obvious to anyone with eyes

 

[samcraig]

Of course I'm not asserting that. I'm stating the historical fact of what Samsung are like as a company. I'm stating the fact that every other company is siding with Apple on this.

That and the 132 page internal document Samsung had, saying how they needed to copy every single feature of the iPhone, cause their UI sucked.

But hey, easier to hate on Apple, right?

You (and others) keep misunderstanding that document. But I'm not going to stop you. Just going to grab some popcorn.

 

[macduke]

Hmm.. Support from Google, that's odd

Nope, read the article.

 

[iMi]

I always say "let the court decide" because that's where the evidence and arguments are presented. Any given article can skew information, but when a jury reviews all the evidence presented and does so objectively then at least the findings are in most cases reaffirmed. Mistakes are made at time, sure. But overall, the system works.

Apple won the case, so I assume they have offered sufficient proof to substantiate their claim.

 

[keysofanxiety]

But surely with the slide closed it would be apple copying the "look"?.

Again, this dispute isn't about rounded corners and screens. That's what the Samsung lawyers unprofessionally huffed and everybody believed it.

Samsung didn't have a full touchscreen phone -- meaning, a phone that is fully operated by touch -- anywhere in the pipeline. It's not just the look. It's the feel. It's how it works.

They copied everything. Everything. The facts are there. Why ignore them?

 

[Sandybox]

Apple better not release an iPhone with curved OLED next year then.

Or a headphone socket (oh, yeah, they solved that one maybe). A pen (oh, they have already stolen that idea for the iPad). Dustbin design for the Mac Pro (anyone remember the Cray 1?). Ultra slim laptop (early carbon shell Sony Vaio)..................

 

[MrX8503]

Where's the UI? Some of those have physical keyboards?

 

[keysofanxiety]

You (and others) keep misunderstanding that document. But I'm not going to stop you. Just going to grab some popcorn.

Oh yeah, 'relative evaluation'. Hey guys, what are we doing wrong, that sort of thing? Compare yourselves to the best, to better yourselves! That's not much of an issue. All companies do that.

But when you look at what the 'relative outcome' of that document was, things started to look awfully similar. Samsung designers just shrugged and said: "well, we can't make it look better or more functional than Apple already have, so let's just copy/paste".

 

[macduke]

I'm glad Apple is finally getting support from the design community. I'm kinda surprised this hadn't happened sooner, but it sounds like they got the idea from the amicus filed by security professionals and companies during the lead up to the FBI iOS unlocking lawsuit that never happened because we the people put the government in their place, the cowards.

 

[samcraig]

Oh yeah, 'relative evaluation'. Hey guys, what are we doing wrong, that sort of thing? Compare yourselves to the best, to better yourselves! That's not much of an issue. All companies do that.

But when you look at what the 'relative outcome' of that document was, things started to look awfully similar. Samsung designers just shrugged and said: "well, we can't make it look better or more functional than Apple already have, so let's just copy/paste".

Well if it happened in 2007 - then we know they didn't copy/paste from Apple's copy/paste - since Apple didn't have copy/paste on their phones

 

[Sandybox]

Again, this dispute isn't about rounded corners and screens. That's what the Samsung lawyers unprofessionally huffed and everybody believed it.

Samsung didn't have a full touchscreen phone -- meaning, a phone that is fully operated by touch -- anywhere in the pipeline. It's not just the look. It's the feel. It's how it works.

They copied everything. Everything. The facts are there. Why ignore them?

The case still isn't made. Form factor will reflect the tchnology available. Apple certainly would not have had a monopoly on ANY aspect of the modern touch-phones technologies so who's to say they weren't just first to market. Surely being first to market gives no rights to generic designs that are a function of the underlying technology? All TVs now look essentially the same, all mass produced cars bear similarities driven by aerodynamic efficiency (and fashion), tablets, laptops........ The only reason all those big companies get the hump is because they don't want to loose their premium prices and profits to the look-alikes.

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Care to share where this chart came from? With citations of dates? Or did you just pull this off of Google without fact checking?

 

[Winni]

Samsung are historically a company that steal design, functionality, features, make bagloads of profit, and then glue the lawsuits in redtape for years -- until it's not a financial hit for them to pay the fine, as they've made all the money already..

That business tactics rather sounds like Apple than anybody else in the industry. Apple only claims to be the mother of all invention, but they usually just rip off smaller companies that do not have the money to defend themselves. "Being sherlocked" is the expression for that in the Apple ecosystem. Read up on it.

"At Apple, we've always been shameless about stealing." -- Steve Jobs

 

[kidaje]

Nope, read the article.

You'r right.. No support from Google. Misread the article

 

[Fender2112]

You are comparing "in development" to "in production". I'm sure Apple has many "in development" versions that precede 2006 and look a lot more like the 2007 iPhone than any of those 2006 Samsung versions.

 

[dBeats]

A thousand times this!!!! Anytime someone brings up those images they NEVER show that they were slider phones with the crappiest feature phone OS imaginable on them. Come on people, we ALL know Samsung ripped off the iPhone and its the ONLY reason they are even in the game with phones at this point.

Hate to pop your bubble, but Apple didn't patent the screen.

And what came out of those Samsung prototypes? Exactly, exactly what you would expect for a company at that time.

They weren't prototypes of full touchscreen phones. They were just prototypes of slider phones. Prototypes of phones that Nokia already had released in the market, by the way.

[doublepost=1470320946][/doublepost]

Now apple copied Samsung (android phones) after introducing iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s plus

By making a bigger version? How is this copying? That makes no sense.

 

[tito2020]

I don't know what the problem is with this, it's clear that Samsung copied the iPhone design, Apple were awarded $1Billion and that's what they should of got.

Everybody wants that pie now.

 

[leroypants]

Out come the fanboys, cultists, and apple zealots would defend and justify every case of Apple stealing and using something another company invented, innovated, created or designed while crying like little babies over a case which should never have gone to trial.
[doublepost=1470321159][/doublepost]

By making a bigger version? How is this copying? That makes no sense.

You should look up irony if you're attacking Samsung while defending Apple like that....

 

[dBeats]

Out come the fanboys, cultists, and apple zealots would defend and justify every case of Apple stealing and using something another company invented, innovated, created or designed while crying like little babies over a case which should never have gone to trial.
[doublepost=1470321159][/doublepost]

You should look up irony if you're attacking Samsung while defending Apple like that....

They literally took the iPhone and made it bigger. I'm still waiting for a concrete example of how this is copying....

 

[leroypants]

That business tactics rather sounds like Apple than anybody else in the industry. Apple only claims to be the mother of all invention, but they usually just rip off smaller companies that do not have the money to defend themselves. "Being sherlocked" is the expression for that in the Apple ecosystem. Read up on it.

"At Apple, we've always been shameless about stealing." -- Steve Jobs

Exactly, Apple's goal was to abuse patent laws in order to be the only company allowed to produce a rectangular phone with a screen. Apple stole, or used illegally hundreds of ideas, technological innovations and inventions of other companies in order to create the iPhone.

 

[RickInHouston]

Goodness. Stop it, already.

"The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple..." What the heck arre they supposed to say? They know where there bread is buttered. It's like a paid witness on the witness stand. Give me a break. Who's stupid enough to give this any weight.

Quit crying apple, you do it too!

 

[Fischyboy]

Calvin Klein filed a brief. Hee hee.

 

[Sunny1990]

A thousand times this!!!! Anytime someone brings up those images they NEVER show that they were slider phones with the crappiest feature phone OS imaginable on them. Come on people, we ALL know Samsung ripped off the iPhone and its the ONLY reason they are even in the game with phones at this point.


[doublepost=1470320946][/doublepost]

By making a bigger version? How is this copying? That makes no sense.

The time has changed now and Samsung phones are far more innovative (Galaxy Note 7) than iPhone and yes they have to copy large android phones to stay up with the market