Samsung's 'Crisis of Design' Memo Enters Patent Trial as Early Apple Designer Testifies on Confusion

[TMay]

Thanks for the link to the Samsung iPhone v S review document.

It's no surprise to anyone who's actually worked in a large corporation, that a comparision review was done. I'd suspect that they could find reports doing comparisons to Windows Phones, WebOS, etc as well.

The important part is to read the "Directions for Improvement" at the bottom of each page. That's where any evidence of mass copying would be. As it turns out, those directions are pretty much what any software designer would come up with. For examples:

EMAIL - Samsung notes that the iPhone has both Previous and Next buttons to move between emails, while they only an Older button. Recommendation: add a Next button as well.

EMAIL - When showing a message, the keyboard always pops up on the S1. On the iPhone, it doesn't. Recommendation: don't show the keyboard.

WIFI - The setup is done on one screen in the iPhone, vs two in the Samsung. Recommendation: do it on one screen.

And so forth. Doesn't seem to be any earth shattering copying going on. It's mostly about adding similar functionality, without copying the screens themselves.

In fact, one of the notes at the end is about the choice of adding a rounded rectangle backdrop behind the icons on the App drawer screen. It points out that this design decision could give the impression of copying, which they don't want to do. Recommendation: "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied, by differentiating design."

In other words, the review recommended NOT looking so much like the iPhone.

Prior to the arrival of the iPhone, one would expect to see Samsung similarly deconstructing other smartphone market leaders, and in similar detail.

Singular and exceptional cases tend to be damning, whether "hair on fire" memo's or the document under discussion.

 

[MonkeySee....]

There are several pages which support the argument. Have you even read it. In totality?

Further - Apple has "completely mugged off" other companies and solutions when creating iOS if we follow your logic. But I guess they get a free pass here, right?

Have I read it in totality? no, its not in English in the latter pages.

The document clearly shows How samsung suggests changing pretty much every feature of the phone to compete with the iPhone.

What sort of morons work for the company in the first place......



"The Screens should not overlap"

No they shouldn't you ****ing morons.

 

[babyj]

Read the document. We've pointed out several points that show it's not what you think it is.

You've picked out several points to show what you want to, conveniently ignoring the rest of the document and the overall way it reads. There are plenty of examples in the document that clearly state they need to exactly replicate the iPhone functionality.

If it was a few points, maybe even a dozen or so, it wouldn't be as bad but there is over 100 listed. It is blatant copying.

Why didn't Samsung realise all of these improvements were needed from their own extensive usability tests and r&d? The answer is simple, they didn't do it themselves as it was cheaper, quicker and easier to copy Apple.

 

[samcraig]

The document clearly shows How samsung suggests changing pretty much every feature of the phone to compete with the iPhone.

That's not the same as copying.

 

[TMay]

The difference for me with Apple is that they looked at the entire mobile phone market, taking some good ideas and then adding lots of their own. Spending a lot of time in r&d in the process to get things right.

They didn't just go out and copy a single device the way Samsung did. If Samsung had gone about it the way Apple did there wouldn't be a problem and there wouldn't be a court case.

Apple has documented the iPhone from conceptual design through production, and even with exploration of alternatives, has been able to show a continuum, in hardware and software.

Would Samsung be able to show the same through the disruption brought by the iPhone? So far, not so much.

 

[boronathan]

That's not the same as copying.

Do you really think the jury is going to think like you? I still stand by my statement that Apple owns some of the stupidest patents known to man, but goodness I've not seen this much denial in my life!

 

[Taz Mangus]

Go to the App Store and type in "Notes" or "Contacts" and you will be hundreds of different ways. Why is it the same design and colors had to be used by Samsung?

A very predictable comment by him. In fact the comments in this thread by the Apple pundits are also just as predictable. Samsung/Android apologists are good for Samsung/Google business.

Wasn't there something about a Samsung company policy about only keeping e-mails for several weeks before destroying them? The fact that the "Crisis" e-mail survived tells me that the 2-week rule was complete BS and Samsung willfully destroyed evidence.

 

[samcraig]

You've picked out several points to show what you want to, conveniently ignoring the rest of the document and the overall way it reads. There are plenty of examples in the document that clearly state they need to exactly replicate the iPhone functionality.

If it was a few points, maybe even a dozen or so, it wouldn't be as bad but there is over 100 listed. It is blatant copying.

Why didn't Samsung realise all of these improvements were needed from their own extensive usability tests and r&d? The answer is simple, they didn't do it themselves as it was cheaper, quicker and easier to copy Apple.

Honest question. Do we know if any other documents exist where Samsung does a 1:1 comparison to other manufacturers? Or do we only know of this one because Apple only cares about this document. Genuine question.

Also - do we know if Apple has any similar documents (comparative analysis) relating to the first or subsequent iterations of the iPhone and iOS.

I ask because it's only "damning" as some people are saying if taken out of context. If there are several documents as this one, from either or both parties, it can say a lot about the climate.

 

[kdarling]

The document is full of statements saying "the iPhone does x, y, z" with a solution of "do x, y, z". It is a thorough review of everything the iPhone does better and then blatantly stating to replicate and copy the exact same functionality.

Yes, the review is about adding the same functionality or making UI improvements, not about directly copying the details of how it was done. There's a huge difference.

For example, when Apple added the iOS notification shade, was that copying? Or do you think that internally they decided that "we need the same functionality without looking exactly the same" ?

Apple spent a massive amount of time, resources and money perfecting the user interface. Samsung had one person spend a day with an iPhone and then document all the stuff to copy. How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

Oh foo. Apple did not come up with the idea of a smart phone or the major design basics. They used what others had done.

The iPhone itself is over 90% just a copy of all the smartphones that came before it, on which other companies spent even more massive amounts coming up with.

While Apple sat on the sidelines for two decades, phone makers had evolved multiple form factors, from clamshell to the basic touchscreen display slab that Apple used. The industry had figured out the best place to put internal antennas, which Apple used as well. The industry had figured out that physical power, volume and home/menu controls were a good idea even with a touchscreen device. Most importantly, others had created the radio chips and indeed the entire world cellular network. Apple had only to use them.

Moreover, all the major software elements of a smartphone had been hammered out long before the iPhone implemented them: phone functions, texting, user apps, settings page, camera, video player, web browser, location services, and others like video recording and MMS that took longer for Apple to include.

Apple had the tremendous advantage of having the entire base design of a smartphone already done for them. And just as with any product on the market, they and others will look at what each has done and try to refine their own products using the best ideas out there.

 

[MonkeySee....]

That's not the same as copying.

 

[twosee]

Are you Samsung fanatics being serious? I cant believe this thread is still going. Apple is not suing over a green and white phone icon.

Suppose you have a company that has a comics division in "crisis of design" so they decide to come up with a new super hero. They create a billionaire alter ego engineer who creates a suit made of stainless steel and Paints it red with silver trim. Creates a bunch of explosive gadgets, and needs a power generator to keep it going. And he calls him Steel Man. Turns the division around with the Iron Man Hack. Marvel sues because, well, it’s a stolen idea.

So you have clueless saying “Hey, comics have been around forever, Marvel didn’t invent comics”. Then you have dopey over there saying “Iron man is Iron, this one is Steel”. And you have goofy saying “Iron man is red with gold trim, steel man is red with silver. Tweedle dee says “Iron man stole that billionaire alter ego from DC and Batman so since THEY copied that, it’s open game”... Steel man has more gadgets, and his generator produces 1.21 jigawats of electricity, iron mans only 1 so ours is different AND better.
You can nitpick all you want at each individual component, but the entire package is a hack. Apple is suing because of the entire product, not an icon, or a color.

Everything from the Dock connector:

to the power supply

Samsung is a hack. they've copied Sony, Apple, RIM, Nokia and Google with their SmartTV. I'm not buying from those hacks.

 

[rendevouspoo]

kdarling, I hope you're a high up somewhere in the tech field. You seem like you know your stuff and you always bring teh facts.

 

[aerok]

NO ONE is going to pick up a Window...OL... a bit much. I hope you weren't serious.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Are you Samsung fanatics being serious? I cant believe this thread is still going. Apple is not suing over a green and white phone icon.

Suppose you have a company that has a comics division in "crisis of design" so they decide to come up with a new super hero. They create a billionaire alter ego engineer who creates a suit made of stainless steel and Paints it red with silver trim. Creates a bunch of explosive gadgets, and needs a power generator to keep it going. And he calls him Steel Man. Turns the division around with the Iron Man Hack. Marvel sues because, well, it’s a stolen idea.

So you have clueless saying “Hey, comics have been around forever, Marvel didn’t invent comics”. Then you have dopey over there saying “Iron man is Iron, this one is Steel”. And you have goofy saying “Iron man is red with gold trim, steel man is red with silver. Tweedle dee says “Iron man stole that billionaire alter ego from DC and Batman so since THEY copied that, it’s open game”... Steel man has more gadgets, and his generator produces 1.21 jigawats of electricity, iron mans only 1 so ours is different AND better.
You can nitpick all you want at each individual component, but the entire package is a hack. Apple is suing because of the entire product, not an icon, or a color.

Everything from the Doc connector:

Image

to the power supply

Image

they even copied the smart cover and called it the "smart case" for the tab 10.1, couldn't even come up with an original name.

Image

Samsung is a hack. they've copied Sony, Apple, RIM, Nokia and Google with their SmartTV. I'm not buying from those hacks.

/thread

 

[aerok]

*Corrected for you*

As a BIASED graphic designer by trade, these icons are blatant ripoffs.
One does not simply go through an entire design process to end up with the exact same color palettes and angles and silhouettes and shapes.
Contrary to popular belief, there are many ways to convey the meaning of these logos, and Samsung chose to mimic very closely, the designs in iOS.

For example, the phone call icon could have had a different type of phone, different form, different orientation, different colors, or not use a phone at all, and have an abstract human face with sound waves coming out, representing a call. There are many ways to approach all of these.

Denying the fact that these were copies is just ignorant.

If I needed a graphic designer, I wouldn't hire anyone that thinks Apple invented that icon...

 

[poloponies]

1.) There's nothing infringing about a product being as good as an Apple product.

2.) If a person has gone all the way through the purchase of a (non-counterfeit) phone and hasn't figured out whether or not it's an Apple product, I don't think the manufacturer is the problem...

It goes beyond that. Apple has developed an enormous amount of goodwill in their product identity. Most people assume that an Apple product will meet a threshold level of performance. Piggybacking onto that goodwill by creating an association with Apple's identity is also at issue. If Apple loses a sale because a consumer makes the association then they don't have to actually believe they're buying an iPhone, it's enough to demonstrate that Samsung wants consumers to believe they're getting an equivalent product.

 

[MonkeySee....]

*Corrected for you*



If I needed a graphic designer, I wouldn't hire anyone that thinks Apple invented that icon...

 

[TMay]

That's not the same as copying.

Describes the reaction to the iPhone disruption, and documents Samsung being behind the power curve based on Apple's iPhone, not on anyone else's smartphone.

Pretty damning evidence for the jury to see, but if in fact this was standard operating procedure then there would be quite a bit less impact.

Surely there are other studies as detailed for other smartphones...

 

[poloponies]

Do you really think the jury is going to think like you? I still stand by my statement that Apple owns some of the stupidest patents known to man, but goodness I've not seen this much denial in my life!

Don't bother trying to make sense of it, he's applying a playground standard, not a legal one.

 

[babyj]

Apple did not come up with the idea of a smart phone or the major design basics. They used what others had done.

The iPhone itself is over 90% just a copy of all the smartphones that came before it, on which other companies spent even more massive amounts coming up with.

While Apple sat on the sidelines for two decades, phone makers had evolved multiple form factors, from clamshell to the basic touchscreen display slab that Apple used. The industry had figured out the best place to put internal antennas, which Apple used as well. The industry had figured out that physical power, volume and home/menu controls were a good idea even with a touchscreen device. Most importantly, others had created the radio chips and indeed the entire world cellular network. Apple had only to use them.

You're totally right, though I'm not sure about the 90% figure. I had smart phones before the iPhone and they were nothing at all like it.

But you've ignored the fact that Apple are paying for a lot of the work that others have done. They pay licensing fees for the chips (to ARM and the various patent holders), they pay licensing fees to Nokia and I'm sure there are plenty of others they are making the relevant payments to.

They're not getting a free ride as you seem to be suggesting.

Another simple way to look at this is if Apple did copy, why isn't someone suing them over the iPhone look, feel and design? If anyone thought they had even a minor chance of winning they would be going for it due to the sums of money involved.

Pretty much all the cases against Apple I'm aware of revolve around FRAND. Only exception I can think of is an ancient Motorola patent from the days when pagers were all the rage, which somehow has enabled them to stop Apple providing a push email service in Germany.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple is not suing over a green and white phone icon.

Yes. They are :

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf



Might I suggest actually reading about the case before you call anyone a "Samsung fanatic" and go off on some rant which starts off with a very bad and untrue premise like you just did ?

 

[twosee]

1.) There's nothing infringing about a product being as good as an Apple product.

2.) If a person has gone all the way through the purchase of a (non-counterfeit) phone and hasn't figured out whether or not it's an Apple product, I don't think the manufacturer is the problem...

it's not they they are "confusing" the consumer, it's that they are copying a successful product in order to gain their own success, and take away sales from the original product because of it. People (usually)don't buy knock offs or generics because they think they are getting the actual product. They buy them because they think they are getting the same quality, same experience as the original. If someone over at Verizon or T-mobile couldn't buy an iPhone, they'd buy the knock off.

It's just sad and pathetic that while companies like Nokia, Rim, HTC chose to be original and come up with their own ideas, Samsung comes, rips off Apple and gains success by it at the loss of HTC, Nokia etc. Trust me, it's hurting those companies more than it is Apple. They are the most valuable company in the world right now at almost 600 billion dollars.

----------

Yes. They are :

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

View attachment 352012

Might I suggest actually reading about the case before you call anyone a "Samsung fanatic" and go off on some rant which starts off with a very bad and untrue premise like you just did ?

Uh, no they aren't. The green and white icon is one single piece of evidence in the case. they aren't suing because "Samsung copied the green and white icon".

 

[rendevouspoo]

Yes. They are :

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

View attachment 352012

Might I suggest actually reading about the case before you call anyone a "Samsung fanatic" and go off on some rant which starts off with a very bad and untrue premise like you just did ?

It's all fun and games for you guys until KnightWRX dude and the Mac demi-god guy comes and destroys every single one of your arguments.

Again...called it

 

[kdarling]

I cant believe this thread is still going. Apple is not suing over a green and white phone icon.

Actually, yes they are suing in part over the phone icon.

Everything from the Dock connector:
(...)
to the power supply

However, they are not suing over any connectors or power supplies.

It would be helpful if people stuck to the actual claims Apple is making.

 

[KnightWRX]

Uh, no they aren't. The green and white icon is one single piece of evidence in the case. they aren't suing because "Samsung copied the green and white icon".

It's not evidence at all, it's a claim in their complaint. They are suing Samsung, in part, because of Trademark infringement over their registered trademark for the phone icon.

A claim in a complaint is not "evidence". Evidence is provided to support a claim.

Insult removed and reported.

----------

Do you really think the jury is going to think like you? I still stand by my statement that Apple owns some of the stupidest patents known to man, but goodness I've not seen this much denial in my life!

You do understand that evidence is explained by both sides to the jury and thus Samsung will provide a defense for it ? IE, they will explain like kdarling and others did what the document says, how it does not show direct copying or even imply infringement of the different trade dress/trademark/patents at issue in the case right ?