Samsung's Lawyers Demand to See iPhone 5 and iPad 3

[Whozown]

This is a complete joke on Samsung's part. Makes them seem whiny, makes me like them even less.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

This is a complete joke on Samsung's part. Makes them seem whiny, makes me like them even less.

And I bet you think Apple is the white knight too.

 

[darkplanets]

Won't happen. It's a weak argument at best given the context of the case, so it won't be approved.

 

[antic]

I respectfully disagree about the phone part. Remember that they've been making phones forever so there's no real reason why they should stop now. They just need to do some more work on their phones with timely updates and their own unique design/UI. They have pretty decent specs if you come to think about it (SAMOLED+, fast processors, etc).

However, I think they should probably stop making tablets. Honestly, how many do they sell? Like 10 with 5 returns? I can't blame them for trying though because they wouldn't know what they are and aren't capable of.

Image

Isn't that a copy of a Nokia 3210

 

[hexor]

And I bet you think Apple is the white knight too.

I fail to to see why people don't think ANY company shouldn't protect a product they came up with? Some company could do all the hard work of research, design, production, etc to come up with a successful product and some other company should just be allowed to skip all that work and come out with a near copy of it knowing that using the same idea would sell well? This is the same idea that Steve Ballmer laughed at.

 

[fswmacguy]

Samsung: "We showed you our knockoff product, now you show us your trade secrets."


Really, Samsung? Both Apple and Samsung are being ridiculous.

 

[Rafterman]

Engineers don't need to see it. Both Apple and Samsung know how to engineer things. Its enough to see what the other guy's new device will have, then make sure your own new device matches it. Neither request should have been/be approved. While I despise this hyper-paranoid company secrecy over products we've seen over the years, I understand why it exists and all of this is nothing more than court-approved industrial spying.

But its also ridiculous for Apple to be suing over obvious design features. The flat tablet like phone running a common operating system for running apps has been around since the PocketPC and Palm OS phones in 2003-ish. Suing over variations of what is now accepted as a common design is pointless.

 

[baryon]

I also demand to see the iPhone 5 this instant! I would not want my new invention to look like it, in case Apple says I copied it. By seeing it first, it makes it impossible for me to copy it!

 

[Mr. Gates]

I never really gave the Galaxy too much thought

But after all the hoopla over the similarity and knowing how open it is.......

I'm taking a closer look,..and liking it !

I love gadgets and the iPhone has been great for 4 years but now.....I'm bored with it.

 

[ChrisTX]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

nice pin you got there, do you know that neonode n1 was realesed before that one and didnt use a stupid pda pin

That Sony phone is from 2003. My point was to show the guy I was responding to that not all smartphones looked like Blackberries before the iPhone and the iPhone really had nothing to do with that.

and another thing lg prada was unveiled 17 january 2007 and iphone 1gen 7 january so what are you gettin' at here.

Insult deleted and reported.

The LG Prada KE850 was announced in december 2006. It was showcased earlier in 2006 too.

Image
Many people would like to forget that this is where Google was headed with Android prior to the success of the iPhone.

Forget ? What makes you think Android doesn't still do that format (the Motorola CHARM) :

Again, the Sony Ericsson P-series smartphones launched years before the iPhone weren't Blackberry look a likes. The iPhone simply went with what the market was doing at the time : Full touch screen phones with apparent buttons.

The Moto Charm was a complete and utter failure as I'm sure the Droid Pro was also. The idea is the original iPhone was the first all touchscreen phone to ship in volume.

 

[krischik]

industrys standard

Samsung even used a sunflower for their Gallery icon.

To me the gallery icon is the only one which looks very different.

But then all the other icons are pretty much industry standard.

• A little person for contacts
• A phone handle to phone
• Gears for setup
• A chat bubble for chat

These are the industry's standard icons used on smart and feature phones before Apple even started to make mobile phones. And there is only that much variations you can put on them.

And Android phones don't have grits of icons by standard. Android has widgets (something iOS5 might get) and Manufactures tend show them off. So the home screen has been specially fabricated to look like iOS.

 

[notabadname]

For Samsung's demand to be valid, it seems Samsung would have to had filed a suit and claimed Apple was developing products (future) based on current Samsung products. Apple's suit is relevant to soon-to-be released (future) products of Samsung that are infringing on current Apple products. Apple's suit is not claiming that Samsung copied future Apple products, so the demand for access to future Apple products is likely frivolous. Samsung has already released images, as well as demo products to the media that Apple claims infringe on existing Apple products and tech. The iPhone 5 is irrelevant to the Apple suit IMO, and will be found as such by the court I bet. Basically Apple is saying the product you are about to release infringes on our current, in-the-market, product.

 

[MarcelV]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

@jeman: <quote>What is Samsung trying to prove here besides having access to more Apple technology to copy?
Why ape Apple in everything including lawsuit and legal maneuvers?</quote>

They are trying to establish timelines. Very smart move. If Apple denies the existence, Samsung can show internal design timelines of their products far exceeding the Apple timelines. If that timeline would exceed, it would be hard for Apple to prove copying.

 

[krischik]

The idea is the original iPhone was the first all touchscreen phone to ship in volume.

That is an easy claim because you can define “in volume” anything you like to make sure your claim sticks.

Actually you are misleading people showing Androids menu structure and leaving out the information that the posted picture IS NOT THE HOME SCREEN.

Right. Because a home screen on Android would have widgets. I wonder if Apple will — when iOS5 is out — sue everybody over the use of widgets.

 

[ph00ny]

Oh, they have taste, all right. Most grocery stores in South Korea are owned by Samsung directly or by one of its branch corporations. Everything else, though, is adapted from other companies.

Their car line that failed in the 1990's is being resurrected by Renault and Samsung. What do they use? Nissan chassis for their cars. Their plasma and most of the LCD stuff? bought from Japan.

Cameras, lenses, tech, everything is bought from someone else.

I'm surprised they got their towers up so well around the world. I wonder whose tech they bought for that. Originality just isn't their strain, but... they are so big and so powerful, they have the clout to make anything and everything work and keep naive foreigners from realising just how insidiously they work.

Apple would do good to move away from Samsung's fab, RAM, etc., and invest in other manufacturers. If they don't, I'm afraid Samsung will just buy out those other companies before they have larger investments.

lol you're kidding me right? LCD bought from japan?
You know that S-LCD which is labeled as sony's baby? it's actually half owned by samsung

1. Sony is samsung's biggest customer for 2011 Q1
2. Sony actually buys samsung lcd panels like everyone else

2011 Q1 breakdown
Rank Company Products Cost(in KRW) Percentage of total revenue
1 Sony DRAM, NAND Flash, LCD Panel, etc... 1.28 3.7
2 Apple Inc AP(mobile processor),DRAM, NAND Flash, etc... 0.9 2.6
3 Dell DRAM, Flat-Panels, Lithium-ion battery, etc... 0.87 2.5
4 HP DRAM, Flat-Panels, Lithium-ion battery, etc... 0.76 2.2

Very well stated. Remember, Apple has it's shredder pointed at the Mobile Division. It is very clear in all the complaints.

Apple and Samsung will continue to work together. Apple's Case against the hardware in the Galaxy 2 is legit, and Samsung has a pants full right now.

They are going to get caught using Apple A5 designs in their chips. They will change the design, and move on.

*cough* A5 design is based on Arm A9 design just like everyone else *cough*

Apple didn't file an lawsuit on chip design. They sued samsung based on what is visible whereas samsung's lawsuit is based on technology embedded under the skin

 

[Dcuellar]

I would love to be there when Samsung's lawyers ask for it. There's no way they can keep a straight face.

 

[mattg3]

I also demand to see the ipad3.Why should damn lawyers have all the fun.

 

[ph00ny]

Okay, going to have to call bull on you ever really owning a 3GS there, unless you had a 'refurbished' second hand one that had been given non-apple parts. Go have a look at the authorised replacement parts, the buttons are a solid aluminium nub affixed to a lever package.



We're talking specifically about the Galaxy S II, which has an all plastic case construction and screen construction.

you mean the gorilla glass on the screen?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaNWuGtAaxM
just in case you want to call it korean bias

same gorilla glass in 5" dell streak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ce8Ckqu0w

 

[*LTD*]

For Samsung's demand to be valid, it seems Samsung would have to had filed a suit and claimed Apple was developing products (future) based on current Samsung products. Apple's suit is relevant to soon-to-be released (future) products of Samsung that are infringing on current Apple products. Apple's suit is not claiming that Samsung copied future Apple products, so the demand for access to future Apple products is likely frivolous. Samsung has already released images, as well as demo products to the media that Apple claims infringe on existing Apple products and tech. The iPhone 5 is irrelevant to the Apple suit IMO, and will be found as such by the court I bet. Basically Apple is saying the product you are about to release infringes on our current, in-the-market, product.

Correct. Which is why Samsung's request is . . . novel, to put it very lightly.

 

[Kwill]

Where's Jack Nicolson?

Samsung, you can't HANDLE an Apple prototype!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

 

[gnasher729]

Or samsung lawyers will show the judge that there is reverent to show difference in products and Apple will have to comply and shove a nice big corn on the cob deep and do it.

So how would the looks of iPhone 5 and iPad 3 have any relevance whatsoever to a case where Apple is suing Samsung for copying the iPhone 4?

 

[*LTD*]

So how would the looks of iPhone 5 and iPad 3 have any relevance whatsoever to a case where Apple is suing Samsung for copying the iPhone 4?

Kudos for understanding the post you replied to.

 

[BLACKFRIDAY]

Forget ? What makes you think Android doesn't still do that format (the Motorola CHARM) :

Image

So you quote one phone that resembles the ancient android project prototypes and forget about the other 300 phones that were inspired by the iPhone?

 

[DanteMann]

Wow some of you really are taking this way too personal. What has either company done for you personally without you having to dish out CASH! Some are calling out Samsung as sad, whiny, pathetic, then you turn around and say something like, "this is why I will never buy another Samsung......" That sounds just as sad, pathetic, and whiny.
Again let me ask, what has either company done for you or your families that they deserve so much blind defending. Do you really think Apple is so righteous in all they do. Really? Same goes for Samsung. Their all the same. People, understand one thing, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILIES!!!. They only want your CASH!!!! So who cares about this stupid lawsuit.
Now excuse me while I phone my buddy on my shiny iPhone 4, and watch some news on my gorgeous brand new Samsung TV.

 

[KnightWRX]

im just sayin' p900 wasnt the first on

And I never claimed it was. I said it's an example of a non-Blackberry type phone before the iPhone. Not that it was first at anything. In fact, the P900 was simply an evolution of the P800 that came before it and others I'm sure.

No need to insult me.