Anyone who's read the document can clearly see that. Most "solutions" are not to "copy the iPhone", simply to make improvements. This document in a sense is proof that Samsung did not copy the iPhone, but made usability improvements based on the fact that their initial designs had flaws the competition didn't have.
IE, the consumer got a better product thanks to Samsung revising their usability in light of what was on the market. Something Apple also does and that every company does.
Exactly! This argument is perfect, which is why Samsung was plenty happy to have this wonderful document detailing their "competitive" spirit admitted into evidence, right? Oh, wait.
Based on everything that has come out so far, one thing is very clear: when the iPhone came out, the number one imperative in the thinking of the entire company could be summarized as "iPhone is the gold standard - get off your asses as eliminate virtually every difference between our phone on both the H/W and S/W sides because any difference breaks in favour of the iPhone at this moment!"
It's not like there is only one way of doing things, Apple's, and so it follows that everything will converge towards the same solutions.
Rather, Apple's way of doing things was so damn superior that once they did it, it seemed natural and obvious. That's how you know you've crushed the competition.
Samsung itself admits this when it says that Apple's design should be available to everybody because the market place has chosen it as the gold standard. There was an article a week ago to this effect.
Samsung is arguing all of the following,
simultaneously:
1. Apple's changes were so revolutionary they should be standard for everyone as you can't compete without them.
2. Apple shouldn't get patents on it's designs, as there is nothing special about them.
3. Samsung did not copy Apple and it's products are unique.
4. The memos throughout the company detailing (1) and how to "improve" Samsung products by eliminating differences with Apple merely show the competitive process.
5. The memos shouldn't be placed into evidence.
6. Place the Apple memo with Eddy Cue mentioning Apple could compete in the 7" market into evidence.
7. Apple is a hypocrite because the Eddy Cue memo is equivalent the our horde of memos that show how Apple was copied.
8. Apple is a hypocrite because we are suing them over patents as well.
Please don't mention that our patent suits are not about trade-dress but about FRAND licensing where Apple preferred to have a court decide what is fair rather than pay outrageous licensing fees that contradict FRAND.
Why stop here? Now now some hardware fun!
9. We didn't copy Apple hardware, we just made a rectangle like them. All phones are rectangles (except for the ovals we made before), so this is not copying.
10. Don't place our memos showing how we "inspired" ourselves from the Apple iRectangle into evidence. But remember it's all legit.
11. Those Apple memos about them "
imagining what a phone would look like if Sony were to create one" show that Apple copied someone else's Rectangle just like we did! Copy be copied, right?
And finally, the kicker, a tactic from earlier that Samsung should really keep for their closer:
12. We tried asking Schiller if he would help our design studios by showing us the iPhone 5, but he refused! Where is his competitive spirit? What a jerk! But most importantly, Apple will change the iPhone 5 from the previous Rectangles we didn't copy, so obviously their previous Rectangles are retroactively public domain and fair-game to copy, right?
GO SAMSUNG! ONWARDS TO VICTORY!
