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

[twosee]

Looking for facts does not make one a fanatic... except for facts



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



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.

It's day 2 in the trial. They are suing over the copying. Everything will come up. from the connectors, to the casing, to the innards to the product packaging. it is NOT "because" of the green and white icon, that's just one component that was used to duplicate the product.

 

[boronathan]

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 ?

I think he meant the case has more substance to it then just the phone icon...

 

[samcraig]

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 ?

I'm really not sure how many people know how trials, evidence, arguments, etc work. We certainly know some people here have reading comprehension issues and only get their facts from previous forum posts.

It's day 2 in the trial. They are suing over the copying. Everything will come up. from the connectors, to the casing, to the innards to the product packaging. it is NOT "because" of the green and white icon, that's just one component that was used to duplicate the product.

Everything won't necc. come up because it's immaterial to the case - and quite frankly - Apple doesn't care about the dock connector. If they did - it would have been in the filing.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think he meant the case has more substance to it then just the phone icon...

And then he goes on a rant about power connectors, something not even mentionned in the complaint.

No, I'm sure he didn't mean that at all. Feel free to let him defend himself though, especially in light of his "insults".

----------

It's day 2 in the trial. They are suing over the copying. Everything will come up. from the connectors, to the casing, to the innards to the product packaging. it is NOT "because" of the green and white icon, that's just one component that was used to duplicate the product.

You don't quite understand how trials work. At this point, things can't "come up". Discovery is over, complaints have been finalized, claims rejected and moved to summary judgement, others left for trial.

@boronathan : see what I mean ? Might not want to get yourself involved on this "twosee" guy's side. He's obviously not quite understanding how this all works.

 

[TMay]

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" ?



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.

So why was Apple the disrupter? Why wasn't it one of the cellphone majors? Why wasn't it MS?

It wasn't magic.

Could it be that all of that experience in building iPods and the years of developing various OS's and applications gave Apple the advantage at a time of transition from a dumb phone to a smart one where computing is the primary task? Oh, and could it be that cellphone tech could be licensed and bought off the shelf as a commodity?

Could it have been management that was bold enough to drink the industries milk shake?

Apple made it look like they were clubbing baby seals.

 

[boronathan]

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.

----------



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 ?

They're going to use that document to explain? Good luck Samsung....

 

[KnightWRX]

They're going to use that document to explain? Good luck Samsung....

Now you're just ignoring all we've posted and trying to get the conversation to go in circles... why are you doing this ? I thought you didn't want to be in the "partial observers" ?

 

[boronathan]

Now you're just ignoring all we've posted and trying to get the conversation to go in circles... why are you doing this ? I thought you didn't want to be in the "partial observers" ?

I responded in kind. You said they will explain to the jury what that document really means, and i said they'll have a hard time.

I'm just baffled by people like yourself who see "we saw x, so we did x" and are trying to argue that that's not going to hurt Samsung. I mean it's right there in black and white.

You trumpet objectivity but don't seem to be objective. Your still saying that Samsung did not try to offer the same experience to its users that ios offers to its?

 

[KnightWRX]

I responded in kind. You said they will explain to the jury what that document really means, and i said they'll have a hard time.

I'm just baffled by people like yourself who see "we saw x, so we did x" and are trying to argue that that's not going to hurt Samsung. I mean it's right there in black and white.

You trumpet objectivity but don't seem to be objective. Your still saying that Samsung did not try to offer the same experience to its users that ios offers to its?

I'm saying Samsung tried to offer the same level of experience to its users that iOS users get from their devices.

You're twisting that to say it's the same experience. The document is about upping the level of their experience to match the market's expectation. It's not about just "doing it like Apple". You do understand the difference right ?

Why don't I seem objective ? Isn't that what the document is about ?

 

[twosee]

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.

----------



Document 305 was inserted as "evidence" in the trial.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3227226/apple-samsung-trial-evidence-august-7-2012#3639029

So you are saying that the official claim in court in the Apple vs Samsung case is "duplicating a green and white phone icon"?

 

[kdarling]

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.

I think one difference in thinking is how people perceive UI changes, and that almost always comes from previous experience.

For example, if someone had only ever used a Blackberry, then an all touch UI would seem quite a change.

In my case, I started coding UIs three decades ago, capacitive touch UIs two decades ago, and mobile UIs a decade ago. When the iPhone was shown off, I'd already done flick scrolling, side swiping, and had smartphones / field devices that were touch oriented. My group had also seen R&D demos under NDA from companies like Microsoft that impressed us in ways that the iPhone did not.

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.

True, yet at the same time, Apple doesn't want to pay the same fees as everyone else; that's why they're pushing for FRAND rate definitions that favor their more profit-margin heavy phones.

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

I understand what you mean. What I meant was that Apple had most of the hard work already done when it came to defining a smartphone platform.

So why was Apple the disrupter? Why wasn't it one of the cellphone majors? Why wasn't it MS?

It could've been MS if they hadn't been so worried about offending corporations using older devices.

Every company was working on all touch UIs. Apple brought what everyone was doing, out of the labs and into production. Thus many people ask, why could they do that and not others? Simple:

Apple's tremendous advantage was in not having a legacy phone to support... at the time. (Now, five years later, they do, and it shows in their UI calcification just as had happened to others before them.)

Btw, I do think the jury could decide that Samsung owes Apple something, and I'm not against that per se. More on this later. We keep getting sidetracked because of naive people resposting the same nonsense pictures instead of getting into a real discussion.

Regards.

 

[boronathan]

I'm saying Samsung tried to offer the same level of experience to its users that iOS users get from their devices.

You're twisting that to say it's the same experience. The document is about upping the level of their experience to match the market's expectation. It's not about just "doing it like Apple". You do understand the difference right ?

Why don't I seem objective ? Isn't that what the document is about ?

Ok that's fair. So when Samsung argues that they were trying to offer the same level of experience to the jury and they accomplished that by seeing what iPhone did and duplicating that, the jury will agree that that's not copying? Just trying to figure out your thought process.

I know some of you guys like to say you don't have a horse in this race, but it's hard to swallow when you're trying to defend a document like this.

samsungs defense will amount to semantics: "we didn't technically copy them, we just tried to offer the same level of experience to our users"

Or do you think they have some other kind of defense?

I do not see anyway that they can win this case, except maybe on appeal. But then again, maybe I'm not giving the jurors enough credit.

 

[KnightWRX]

So you are saying that the official claim in court in the Apple vs Samsung case is "duplicating a green and white phone icon"?

It is 1 official claim. Apple has brought several claims to trial over different trademarks and patent it alleges Samsung infringes and also other claims for trade dress infringement.

----------

Ok that's fair. So when Samsung argues that they were trying to offer the same level of experience to the jury and they accomplished that by seeing what iPhone did and duplicating that, the jury will agree that that's not copying? Just trying to figure out your thought process.

I have no idea what the jury will think. For all we know, they could think Apple's lawyer is not understanding the document when he presents it to claim "Samsung were looking at the iPhone, that means they were in a mindset to match our experience".

They could vacuously look out into space and think about what's for supper too as both lawyers seem to just be talking nonsense.

No one here but the jury knows what they are thinking and that can also change from juror to juror. I'm only telling you that procedurally speaking, Apple will push its idea of what the document says, the Samsung counsel will explain what the document says to them, and the jury will then get to make up its mind.

Remember Oracle v. Google. A lot of people called "smoking guns" on some "evidence" in that. What ultimately happened ?

I know some of you guys like to say you don't have a horse in this race, but it's hard to swallow when you're trying to defend a document like this.

Analysing a document and understanding its content now means we "have a horse in the race" ?

What horse do you think I have here ? I don't even own an Android phone, much less a Samsung one. My fridge maybe ?

samsungs defense will amount to semantics: "we didn't technically copy them, we just tried to offer the same level of experience to our users"

And so will Apple's, what's your point ? This is a trial, this is all about semantics and coma placement.

Or do you think they have some other kind of defense?

I do not see anyway that they can win this case, except maybe on appeal. But then again, maybe I'm not giving the jurors enough credit.

A lot of people didn't think Google could prevail against Oracle.

 

[twosee]

And then he goes on a rant about power connectors, something not even mentionned in the complaint.

No, I'm sure he didn't mean that at all. Feel free to let him defend himself though, especially in light of his "insults".

----------



You don't quite understand how trials work. At this point, things can't "come up". Discovery is over, complaints have been finalized, claims rejected and moved to summary judgement, others left for trial.

@boronathan : see what I mean ? Might not want to get yourself involved on this "twosee" guy's side. He's obviously not quite understanding how this all works.

First of all, I apologize for the insult. poor taste in my part.

Second, going by the PDF you yourself linked, this is quoted in the doc begining on page 3, line 6 under complaints in the Apple vs Samsung case:

"Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights. As alleged below in detail, Samsung has made its Galaxy
phones and computer tablet work and look like Apple’s products through widespread patent and trade dress infringement. Samsung has even misappropriated Apple’s distinctive product packaging."


So yes, technology, design, packaging... it will all come up. And as I said.. it's not just because of a phone icon.

 

[samcraig]

You missed the point about discovery and what has and what has not been submitted.

First of all, I apologize for the insult. poor taste in my part.

Second, going by the PDF you yourself linked, this is quoted in the doc begining on page 3, line 6 under complaints in the Apple vs Samsung case:

"Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights. As alleged below in detail, Samsung has made its Galaxy
phones and computer tablet work and look like Apple’s products through widespread patent and trade dress infringement. Samsung has even misappropriated Apple’s distinctive product packaging."


So yes, technology, design, packaging... it will all come up. And as I said.. it's not just because of a phone icon.

 

[KnightWRX]

So yes, technology, design, packaging... it will all come up. And as I said.. it's not just because of a phone icon.

No, that's the thing, it has come up already, if it hasn't, it's not going to come up. The power connector you ranted about hasn't come up, it won't be part of Apple's trade dress complaints as they have not made claims for it or presented it as evidence.

And you said at first that it wasn't at all about a phone icon. We showed you that yes, the phone icon is part of the complaint, as a registered trademark.

Don't move goalpost, it's ok if you haven't followed the trial, but please don't make claims that people that have done so are "wrong" and please don't argue against facts if you can't present opposing facts or evidence that those facts are wrong.

 

[boronathan]

It is 1 official claim. Apple has brought several claims to trial over different trademarks and patent it alleges Samsung infringes and also other claims for trade dress infringement.

----------



I have no idea what the jury will think. For all we know, they could think Apple's lawyer is not understanding the document when he presents it to claim "Samsung were looking at the iPhone, that means they were in a mindset to match our experience".

They could vacuously look out into space and think about what's for supper too as both lawyers seem to just be talking nonsense.

No one here but the jury knows what they are thinking and that can also change from juror to juror. I'm only telling you that procedurally speaking, Apple will push its idea of what the document says, the Samsung counsel will explain what the document says to them, and the jury will then get to make up its mind.

Remember Oracle v. Google. A lot of people called "smoking guns" on some "evidence" in that. What ultimately happened ?



Analysing a document and understanding its content now means we "have a horse in the race" ?

What horse do you think I have here ? I don't even own an Android phone, much less a Samsung one. My fridge maybe ?



And so will Apple's, what's your point ? This is a trial, this is all about semantics and coma placement.



A lot of people didn't think Google could prevail against Oracle.

Very good points about oracle/google. Like i said, I'm probably not giving the jurors enough credit. This document, imo, is more damming then the Google email in the oracle case, because it's quite clear that they specifically made changes based on a detailed observation of ios.

I would not be surprised if Samsung loses, and I'm still confident they will. We'll find out in a couple of weeks

 

[TMay]

Every company was working on all touch UIs. Apple brought what everyone was doing, out of the labs and into production. Thus many people ask, why could they do that and not others? Simple:

Apple's tremendous advantage was in not having a legacy phone to support... at the time. (Now, five years later, they do, and it shows in their UI calcification just as had happened to others before them.)

Apple's tremendous advantage was that its business model was entirely different than the competition, and there was great risk when Apple entered the market. Apple's advantage was that the carriers weren't going to get to mess with the phone. Even Samsung has learned this.

As for iOS calcification, I'm not seeing that this is hindering iPhone acceptance, and legacy support is still longer than anyone else in the industry.

Three years from now, we will be hearing of a complete rewrite of iOS, and 5 years from now, we will be seeing it. That is the way Apple works.

Meanwhile, Apple has the best supply chain strategy by far, followed by Samsung, and guess who are making the big bucks?

Of course Samsung wants to follow Apple's lead.

 

[samcraig]

Very good points about oracle/google. Like i said, I'm probably not giving the jurors enough credit. This document, imo, is more damming then the Google email in the oracle case, because it's quite clear that they specifically made changes based on a detailed observation of ios.

I would not be surprised if Samsung loses, and I'm still confident they will. We'll find out in a couple of weeks

First I just want to say that although we don't always agree - I respect your opinions and the way you present them (mostly ).

Yes - we will indeed see what happens in a few weeks. But I think we both know that whatever happens in this trial is only the warm up for any/all appeals. It's not over until it's over...

 

[boronathan]

First I just want to say that although we don't always agree - I respect your opinions and the way you present them (mostly ).

Yes - we will indeed see what happens in a few weeks. But I think we both know that whatever happens in this trial is only the warm up for any/all appeals. It's not over until it's over...

Absolutely correct. This thing won't be over even when it's over. I can easily see an Apple victory being overturned on appeal due to some kind of technicality.

 

[Renzatic]

How dare your post conflict with what I think! I hate you so much.

 

[twosee]

No, that's the thing, it has come up already, if it hasn't, it's not going to come up. The power connector you ranted about hasn't come up, it won't be part of Apple's trade dress complaints as they have not made claims for it or presented it as evidence.

And you said at first that it wasn't at all about a phone icon. We showed you that yes, the phone icon is part of the complaint, as a registered trademark.

Don't move goalpost, it's ok if you haven't followed the trial, but please don't make claims that people that have done so are "wrong" and please don't argue against facts if you can't present opposing facts or evidence that those facts are wrong.

Just because it hasn't come up, doesn't mean it WONT come up. They introduce things into court cases all the time. I don't know if it will, I am just saying that even the connector is similar (IMO).

And i wasn't "ranting" about the dock connector, just making a statement. You don't need to over-sensationalize statements in others' posts just to dramatize your replies.

 

[babyj]

True, yet at the same time, Apple doesn't want to pay the same fees as everyone else; that's why they're pushing for FRAND rate definitions that favor their more profit-margin heavy phones.

From what I've read Motorola and Samsung were each demanding a 2.5% royalty of the selling price of the whole product from Apple, for a subset of the patents that make up the entire FRAND agreement for the baseband processor which costs about $10 and is already licensed for the patents.

Microsoft have also refused to pay the 2.5% and I've never read anything to suggest anyone else is paying it either. Added to which Motorola and/or Samsung have pretty much admitted the 2.5% was too high and that they never expected to get it, now calling it a negotiation starting point.

It also seems pretty apparent that they knew Apple wouldn't pay and that this is what they wanted so they could sue them with the aim of getting their products banned. And all of this is because Apple won't let them copy the iPhone or license their non-FRAND patents. Which kind of takes us full circle.

 

[Tones2]

Have you read the document (samsungs) above detailing how Samsung looked to change its UI based on the iPhone?

If you read that and still think this lawsuit is ridiculous there is no hope for you.

Than you have no hope for me. This lawsuit is STUPENDOUSLY ridiculous. Like Samsung copying extremely insignificant things like big call buttons and the like. A green phone icon? Who CARES? Just becaue they reference a competing product doesn't mean it's significant. Everyone copies to some degree off of a competitor. Did APPLE invent the friggin' SMARTPHONE? No - they COPIED the idea.

And no one with an IQ over 75 is ever going to BUY a SAMSUNG phone thinking it's an iPhone. Jeez.....Get over it and let's move on. It Apple wins this case and Samsung stops selling phones, there are going to be a WORLD of people really pissed off at Apple. If they win and Samsung has to get rid of square icons app triggers and stupid stuff like that - great. I hate the iOS app triggering design anyway.

 

[Lennholm]

"simply evolved over time?" Way to get it wrong, man. Look, everybody knows the handset shape has represented "phone" from the beginning of all cell phones. That's certain. Heck, using green is also something that came well before cell phones too.

But that's not the problem.

This is the iPhone dialer icon:
Image
This has the Palm OS dialer icon on a Centro:
Image
This is the webOS dialer icon:
Image
This has the original stock Android dialer icon (Samsung doesn't use the stock Android):
Image
Android 2.3:
Image
Android 4:
Image
Windows Phone 7:
Image
Windows Mobile:
Image
Different Windows Mobile:
Image

There are obviously tons of ways to design a phone dialer icon that makes sense. All those listed above are very unique and distinguishable. Heck, Palm even use to use the shape of the device it's running on as part of the icon. Very unique. Many of them even use different colors.

Apple's icon is different in that it's not a green handset. It's a white handset icon, on a green background. Who else up in that swath of phones has a white handset on a green background?:
Nobody. Not even Google. Got that? Not. Even. Google.

But Samsung made one.

But that's not a big deal. The big deal is that Samsung not only made a phone icon that's similar to Apple's, they made a crapton of more icons that are similar to Apple's.

Like seriously, look at the icons in the HTC G1 picture. Then look at a Samsung Captivate's icons. Then look at an iPhone 3G. You can't possibly deny that Samsung's icons look significantly more like Apple's than Google's.

As for the LG Optimus 4X HD P880 (man, that name is horrible), I have a feeling that if LG keeps that up, they'll be served the same lawsuit soon.

The proper scientific method is to use deductive research instead of inductive, so your cherry picked photos don't proove anything