Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces

farmboy said:
That's silly: it was introduced as evidence in a trial. How it's perceived in the public is not relevant. The other party has its chance to refute whatever Apple says in court.
Click to expand...

How it's perceived is the very root of the issue. You can take the document two ways:

1. Samsung drew out a document studied the iPhone. That's perfectly legal, and is done by EVERY. SINGLE. COMPANY. If someone releases a similar product that's better than yours, you don't just hang your head, say "well guys, guess we should've been a little more innovative cry cry cry", then close up shop. You look at what it did better, and attempt integrate their ideas and improve upon them.

Someone somewhere is going to one-up you at something, and they probably did it by taking something you did and implementing it better. Everyone is allowed to be inspired by the competition.

2. Samsung drew out a map on how best to copy the iPhone. This isn't legal. It's flat out plagiarism. No one is allowed to take someone elses ideas and copy them wholesale without any improvements or compelling reasons for copying. You can't take an iPhone and rebrand it as something else.

How people perceive what this document means is very important. Is it an example of 1, or 2? It's the lawyers jobs to try to influence the jury's perspective on the subject.
 
ristlin said:
Innovation implies looking at something as a basis and creating something new.

Android's notification system itself is an innovation upon the alert system present in many phones including the original iPhone. Apple, in tern, responded by innovating upon their alert system and came up with the Notification Center -- no doubt borrowing elements that Google had come up with. HOWEVER, both systems, although similar, are different.
Click to expand...

The original iPhone had NO notification system and NO App store.
 
farmboy said:
That's silly: it was introduced as evidence in a trial. How it's perceived in the public is not relevant.
Click to expand...

I never said how it's perceived in the public was relevant. I said that the jury's perception could be a mirror of what we see on this forum, which is why Samsung didn't want it introduce most probably.

IE Samsung didn't want the jury to think this was establishing some kind of "Design Ethos", even though it's a fairly straightforward design flaw analysis that most companies do internally.
 
boronathan said:
Just look at other oems to see different ways to do what Apple did. In fact, look at stock Android itself.
Click to expand...

Why should they? It's a common practice to improve your own products using ideas produced by others. Most (all?) of these ideas have nothing to do with the patents ad/or trade marks in question. This has nothing to do with copying. In this document, engineers analyze iPhone and learn from it. Everybody does it including Apple. The purpose of this study is to learn and improve their own products and not to create a clone phone. If Samsung wanted a copy of iPhone they would simply do it (it's not that difficult). Obviously that was not Samsung goal.
 
Samsung is busted, it's over. They are copycat thieves and they will be punished to the highest extent of the law.
 
Wow, just wow

I noticed that most of the recommendations suggest revisions to be more like the iPhone... as if the iPhone UX is the-one-n-only possible solution. Regardless of legal implications, it's stunningly sad that Samsung slavishly copied Apple.
 
Renzatic said:
How it's perceived is the very root of the issue. You can take the document two ways:

1. Samsung drew out a document studied the iPhone. That's perfectly legal, and is done by EVERY. SINGLE. COMPANY. If someone releases a similar product that's better than yours, you don't just hang your head, say "well guys, guess we should've been a little more innovative cry cry cry", then close up shop. You look at what it did better, and attempt integrate their ideas and improve upon them.

Someone somewhere is going to one-up you at something, and they probably did it by taking something you did and implementing it better. Everyone is allowed to be inspired by the competition.

2. Samsung drew out a map on how best to copy the iPhone. This isn't legal. It's flat out plagiarism. No one is allowed to take someone elses ideas and copy them wholesale without any improvements or compelling reasons for copying. You can't take an iPhone and rebrand it as something else.

How people perceive what this document means is very important. Is it an example of 1, or 2? It's the lawyers jobs to try to influence the jury's perspective on the subject.
Click to expand...

No, it's still silly---only the judge and jury matter, and Samsung gets to refute it all. How you, or this forum, look at it doesn't matter.
 
lilo777 said:
Why should they? It's a common practice to improve your own products using ideas produced by others. Most (all?) of these ideas have nothing to do with the patents ad/or trade marks in question. This has nothing to do with copying. In this document, engineers analyze iPhone and learn from it. Everybody does it including Apple. The purpose of this study is to learn and improve their own products and not to create a clone phone. If Samsung wanted a copy of iPhone they would simply do it (it's not that difficult). Obviously that was not Samsung goal.
Click to expand...

Yes they "learned" from it. "we have learned that apples way is better way, so we learned to do it the same way"

How did Samsung improve apples implementation?
 
KnightWRX said:
Of course, but that makes for much less sensationalistic headlines and it doesn't help posters who absolutely have to see Apple as good guys and Samsung as bad guys.
Click to expand...

Samsung didn't have to be the bad guys. If they couldn't compete, they could have bowed-out. Where is it written that Samsung has to be in this business? Of course there is money to be made, so they stayed in, and very shamelessly copied what they did not have the talent to do in the first place... And they did so at Apple's expense. Apple now wants damages.

Samsung chose this path. And instead of settling because they obviously know what they did, they decided they would fight it in the open. Well now everything they couldn't destroy is being aired-out in public, and it looks bad.

Apple is good because they created something so well-engineered that even their competitors have basically admitted they can't do without their work.

Samsung is bad because they didn't ask Apple to license iOS or OEM the iPhone. They knew the answer would be no. So what they knew they could never get legitimately, they had to simply take and run with. Justice is now going to catch up.

Hopefully the good guys and the bad guys will each get what they deserve.
 
Peace said:
Well in this case we are discussing it IS a court matter.

Save the irrelevant conjecture for another thread.
Click to expand...

Have you read this thread? It's riddled with conjecture from everyone. Why single him and his posts out? :rolleyes:

boronathan said:
Discovery involves letting both sides know what you're going to present. So Samsung knew this was coming. Unlike tv there are no surprise witnesses or 11th hour exhibits pulled out of apples butt. But I'm sure you know that.
Click to expand...

Yes. Which is why I said that it won't be presented. Samsung knew this was coming. Any thoughts as to why they didn't enter anything else to refute this is conjecture, right? I'm assuming the lawyers aren't idiots. I'm assuming they have a game plan on how best to argue their side. Just like Apple knows what Samsung has up it's sleeve and their lawyers (who aren't idiots) will do what they can to dispute Samsung's claim.

I wasn't the one who said "If there are other documents with the same level of detail, Samsung will introduce them when they present their case (if they have some sense). " which, in my opinion, seems to indicate you think a rabbit could be pulled out of a hat ;)
 
hugo7 said:
I noticed that most of the recommendations suggest revisions to be more like the iPhone... as if the iPhone UX is the-one-n-only possible solution. Regardless of legal implications, it's stunningly sad that Samsung slavishly copied Apple.
Click to expand...

But to their credit they innovated past that iPhone-copy UI. If you look at the current Galaxy S3 home screen:

samsung-galaxy-s3-hands-on-9.jpg


it looks nothing like the iPhone home screen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
samcraig said:
But do you know for a fact that Samsung only has this one document? Is it possible that they have several but only this one was subpoenaed by Apple? A sincere question.
Click to expand...

You are right, I don't know that for a fact. However, if they do compare other competitor's phones in addition to Apple, putting each one in a separate document isn't a particularly logical way to do it. For one, having separate documents would imply separate conclusions drawn from each phone. You might have one document say "iPhone does it this way, so we should do it this way" and then another that says "Blackberry does it this way, so we should do it this way". Which is correct? If they both do something the same way, then having separate documents weakens their ability to conclude "see, they both do it this way, so we should too".

If other, separate documents exist, I wonder if Samsung wouldn't want to produce them to be able to say "See? It wasn't just you we looked at, we looked at all these other guys too".
 
This will cost Samsung billions in cash, probably en entire quarter's worth of EBITA. Not devastating in the long run in itself, but a massive hit to their image and with the new iPhone coming might be the death blow to the Galaxy S line.
 
smoledman said:
Samsung is busted, it's over. They are copycat thieves and they will be punished to the highest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

The case isn't over. And your analysis is Eye Opening - especially on page 19 of a thread.


dermeister said:
Samsung didn't have to be the bad guys. If they couldn't compete, they could have bowed-out. Where is it written that Samsung has to be in this business? Of course there is money to be made, so they stayed in, and very shamelessly copied what they did not have the talent to do in the first place... And they did so at Apple's expense. Apple now wants damages.

Samsung chose this path. And instead of settling because they obviously know what they did, they decided they would fight it in the open. Well now everything they couldn't destroy is being aired-out in public, and it looks bad.

Apple is good because they created something so well-engineered that even their competitors have basically admitted they can't do without their work.

Samsung is bad because they didn't ask Apple to license iOS or OEM the iPhone. They knew the answer would be no. So what they knew they could never get legitimately, they had to simply take and run with. Justice is now going to catch up.

Hopefully the good guys and the bad guys will each get what they deserve.
Click to expand...

It must be wonderful to live in a world that is so black and white to have good guys and bad guys. First - they are businesses - not guys. Second - there's a lot of grey area involved. And third - not one company is an innocent.
 
samcraig said:
Have you read this thread? It's riddled with conjecture from everyone. Why single him and his posts out? :rolleyes:



Yes. Which is why I said that it won't be presented. Samsung knew this was coming. Any thoughts as to why they didn't enter anything else to refute this is conjecture, right? I'm assuming the lawyers aren't idiots. I'm assuming they have a game plan on how best to argue their side. Just like Apple knows what Samsung has up it's sleeve and their lawyers (who aren't idiots) will do what they can to dispute Samsung's claim.

I wasn't the one who said "If there are other documents with the same level of detail, Samsung will introduce them when they present their case (if they have some sense). " which, in my opinion, seems to indicate you think a rabbit could be pulled out of a hat ;)
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow. You make it extremely hard to view you as an unbiased party. (also the fact that you keep insisting you're an unbiased party to everyone) It's ok to admit you were wrong sometimes...

What better way to prove that you do this all the time, then providing documents that show you do this all the time? :confused: what other possible defense would Samsung have against this document, if they want to argue that they do this all the time?

Please don't try to flip this on me. You clearly did not understand what discovery is and are now trying to argue that Samsung probably had some other trick up their sleeve to counter this doc. I just say i lost a little respect for you there as it's evident now that you just want to be right no matter what. Now you'll come back and say you don't care what anyone thinks...
 
farmboy said:
No, it's still silly---only the judge and jury matter, and Samsung gets to refute it all. How you, or this forum, look at it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Here we go with this reducto ad dumb BS again. If that's the case, then why is there a thread on it? Why are we here discussing it? Nothing we've said in the past X amount of threads has any bearing on the case, so why are we even bothering? It's a waste of time and it's stupid. Right?

You know, you're right. Only the judge and jury matter. BUT WE ARE ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON IT!
 
samcraig said:
The case isn't over. And your analysis is Eye Opening - especially on page 19 of a thread.




It must be wonderful to live in a world that is so black and white to have good guys and bad guys. First - they are businesses - not guys. Second - there's a lot of grey area involved. And third - not one company is an innocent.
Click to expand...

It is over. It's only a question of how much the judge will award Apple. Maybe she goes all out and makes Samsung pay $10 billion!
 
samcraig said:
Have you read this thread? It's riddled with conjecture from everyone. Why single him and his posts out? :rolleyes:



Yes. Which is why I said that it won't be presented. Samsung knew this was coming. Any thoughts as to why they didn't enter anything else to refute this is conjecture, right? I'm assuming the lawyers aren't idiots. I'm assuming they have a game plan on how best to argue their side. Just like Apple knows what Samsung has up it's sleeve and their lawyers (who aren't idiots) will do what they can to dispute Samsung's claim.

I wasn't the one who said "If there are other documents with the same level of detail, Samsung will introduce them when they present their case (if they have some sense). " which, in my opinion, seems to indicate you think a rabbit could be pulled out of a hat ;)
Click to expand...

You sure assume a lot :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back