Yup. Whatever happens, it's gonna be a helluva thing. I bet all kinds of people are gonna be freaking out around here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup. Whatever happens, it's gonna be a helluva thing. I bet all kinds of people are gonna be freaking out around here.
Yep you are right, i can't answer those questions easily either. However, this document is doing Samsung no favors, and trying to argue semantics (which is their only viable defense) doesn't seem very...viable.
Ouch. I agree.
After page 55 you pretty much get the gist. The other 76 pages just make things more clear - in case you missed the first 55 pages.
A blind child could arrive at clearer conclusion than some of the people posting on this forum.
A lot of people do this all the time competitive analysis is a normal tool to compare against your peers and to generate ideas. However, this seems to take it a step further. This seems to indicate that the Samsung team didn't have a design process to lead them to innovation. You can't simply look at what everyone else does and copy it. And here's what this lawsuit boils down to, to me ...
1. Samsung did not have a design team in place to innovate the user interface of phones.
2. Their competitive analysis resulted in design changes that would never have taken place had the iPhone not come to market.
... and as a result, they COPIED Apple.
The bottom line is that they could have taken that research post-iPhone and come up with their own ideas and visual language. But they didn't. That takes time. It was cheaper for them to copy a good example, right down to icon language, colors, layout, and shapes. It's such a blatant rip-off, that you can't say Samsung did much of anything of their own.
1. Samsung did not have a design team in place to innovate the user interface of phones.
2. Their competitive analysis resulted in design changes that would never have taken place had the iPhone not come to market.
... and as a result, they COPIED Apple.
The bottom line is that they could have taken that research post-iPhone and come up with their own ideas and visual language. But they didn't. That takes time. It was cheaper for them to copy a good example, right down to icon language, colors, layout, and shapes. It's such a blatant rip-off, that you can't say Samsung did much of anything of their own.
Oh yeah. I mean it would be completely different if they looked at the iPhone and instead of saying "we need to improve on the iPhone". They didn't. They didn't go the route of "we have another way of doing this and making it easier or look better" or whatever. Not just saying "Apple did it right here, lets change ours so it works like it". It's pretty damning with how much they looked at to change on there end. Not like 5 or 10 things. But, like A LOT. Things that may seem "obvious" to many people, CLEARLY was not for them pre iPhone. And I take it, other companies too.
I mean, I guess its good they went so deeply into it. They could have cheeped out I guess and not looked at it so closely. But, in doing so they didn't really give themselves any room to do it better. They pretty much didn't allow themselves to make it better. You can't if your just looking at something else and not coming up with anything new.
(sorry my previous post had my words all mixed up, long day!)
Last edited:
Ok you are not a pundit. You are, a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner; AKA a critic or commentator.... better?
Just laughing at myself and an old blog post I made re: the touchscreen keyboard as well as several other objections I had to the original iPhone. Apple eventually addressed most of my concerns....and this is why I bought the 3G.
Why even respond?
The case hasn't been decided - how is it a sad day?
And the document doesn't prove anything. It can support an argument. And can certainly be argued either way. But as "proof" - not so much.
p.s. It's also not as cut and dry. Innovate is not the antonym of Copy and vice-verse.
Not everything is black and white, you proclaim (i.e. there are no absolutes) - which is itself an absolute statement. You see axioms (existence exists, absolutes exist), have a funny property whereby trying to deny one results in a contradiction - you end up using it in your attempt to disprove it.
1. Businesses are groups of people collaborating towards a common purpose. The ethics of a business's actions are the result of the ethics of the people who constitute it.
2. Correct, there is grey area. When does "inspiration" become so over the top that it constitutes outright copying? Or when is it so pervasive that it constitutes a clear pattern or mode of operation?
3. Not one company is innocent? In this one sentence you have a) accepted the premise of innocence existing as a concept and b) said no entity has achieved this concept and c) made an absolute, black and white statement that nobody is innocent.
Let's establish our premises, and where the grey area is:
1. Private property is a right. This is the "good".
2. The courts are here to protect our rights. They defend the "good".
3. Apple has design patents it claims Samsung infringed.
4. If Samsung infringed Apple's rights, they did something "bad".
The court is the objective arbiter that will evaluate (3). If the court concurs, (4) is the case.
1, 2, and 4 are black and white. 3 is not - that is why we need a court to make an objective judgement.
If Apple infringed a trade-dress/design patent, they too would be "bad". Samsung has not claimed Apple has infringed on any trade-dress/design. Their patent suits are FRAND suits. It is not the same. In FRAND cases, if both parties cannot agree on "fair" fees, the court is in fact the proper venue to determine them. This is because FRAND has a built-in grey area - i.e. what is "fair".
This is why your claim that "there are no innocents" falls flat - saying that everybody is guilty because there are lawsuits in both directions is an equivocation.
Android's notification menu vs. Apple's is about as similar as Android to iOS themselves. Yeah, they look similar, yet are both quite different in implementation.
So why do some people call Android a "stolen" product, a copycat OS because it's superficially similar on the surface, yet consider the other completely original and innovative despite being superficially similar to things that have come before it?
Android is so "innovative" that a judge ordered them to strip out universal search because they copied Apple's method.
It's a sad day because this damning document has come to light about a company that I like.
It's just freaking sad. I wanted so much for the bottom portion of each of these 131 pages to say something like "the iPhone has X feature - How can we make it better? How can we push the envelope? How can we innovate here?"
Instead it was page after page of the same copy this, add this, get this, put it here. It was disappointing page after sad disappointing page.
Hope that answered your "how is it a sad day?".
They added the SMS slide to unlock which apple actually copied back from Samsung, had the home screen seperate from the app drawer with widgets. Many other features as well.
Their unlock screen is also completely different. Its an image and you can slide it in any direction.
Agreed. There was absolutely zero effort put forth by Samsung. Seriously what possible defense could they possibly present other then nitpicking the definition of "copy"? (which is what their defenders are doing here...)
I can't think of one. Can you?
Well played. However..
I didn't proclaim what you say I proclaimed. And saying not everything means that some things can be and some things aren't. So it's not really an absolute statement. It's acknowledging that there are variables. If I had said everything is grey - well then - that would be absolute.
Further - someone or some entity (company) can do something bad. That doesn't make them a bad company. It makes their action bad. The OP said "good guys and the bad guys will each get what they deserve." That's simplistic, don't you think?
And I say no one is an innocent because whether they have been caught or not, every company engages in behavior which would put them in a court on the side of the defense. To think otherwise would be naive.
I didn't proclaim what you say I proclaimed. And saying not everything means that some things can be and some things aren't. So it's not really an absolute statement. It's acknowledging that there are variables. If I had said everything is grey - well then - that would be absolute.
Further - someone or some entity (company) can do something bad. That doesn't make them a bad company. It makes their action bad. The OP said "good guys and the bad guys will each get what they deserve." That's simplistic, don't you think?
And I say no one is an innocent because whether they have been caught or not, every company engages in behavior which would put them in a court on the side of the defense. To think otherwise would be naive.
It is just a competitive analysis that "we had fought like hell to keep the document excluded from trial". What a hypocrite.
http://allthingsd.com/20120808/samsung-on-its-iphone-envy-memo-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/
http://allthingsd.com/20120808/samsung-on-its-iphone-envy-memo-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/
I don't think they copied Apple's method so much as there was only one way to do it, and Apple had the patent for it.
...which is more a problem of the current software patent setup moreso than Google copying anyone.
The judge ordered no such thing.
The judge issued an injunction on the premise that Apple could argue the case successfully.
No actual infringement has been found as it hasn't been brought to trial yet.
Google chose to pull the feature until the case is heard. This keeps their product on the market.
I have a pretty good hunch the patent gets tossed or Google's implementation is deemed sufficiently different as to not infringe.
Remember.. you cannot patent a concept. You have to be specific in implementation.
I missed the part where one feature = an entire OS.
I also missed the point where Android was on trial here. I thought this was Apple V Samsung specifically
Nope. Not one.
I have about as much ideas as the Samsung design and R&D team.
"My team is better and smarter than your team"
- Stefan Jobes