I worked as an interface designer and we did plenty of research (especially analyzing the UI of iOS or iPhone OS as it was called back then). You don't know if there are other documents that reference to other UIs. Probably someone told an intern to look for all the small details and tweaks of Apples UI. It's nothing wrong with learning from other/better ideas.
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
True. And in some cases this can matter. I don't think this one will, though.
Analysis:
Say Samsung wins. For about a week, tech blogs will proclaim, "See! Nobody copied Apple! Fanboys cry across the world!" Yawn goes the public, if they even hear of it, and continue on their merry way, whichever way that is. Lawyers: paid.
Say Apple wins. They won't proclaim this much, they won't bother. Tech blogs say whatever, public doesn't see it. Apple won't license anything, so Samsung will come up with a new version of their UI, probably already working on it. Heck, JB is different enough that it probably qualifies, they could just stop using the skin for awhile and go raw Google UI. (would probably help their sales) Apple continues to do whatever they want for their next phone and iOS. Lawyers: paid.
Well, if it's not an opinion, then it's an invention.
The document is not stating "copy the design", it states the complete opposite. Make sure that this is not a copy of the other.
You are implying that the design was originally copied, but the document doesn't state that. It says that the design is similar enough that it can create a feeling that it has been copied.
I'm not stating that it was or wasn't copied, just that this is not evidence. It's at most circumstantial.
And as for your last point - that to innovate means that there is no reference point - well, I'll refer you to the last part of the definition that you supplied:
"make changes in anything established"
By definition, to make changes in anything established, then there has to be a reference point to work from!
I agree. Oh - and among the several Apple products I own - I do own a Samsung Galaxy Skyrocket.
Eh - I personally wouldn't base my purchasing decision on patent cases in the news. If anything - Samsung being found "guilty" of copying the iPhone would only reinforce the confusion in the marketplace. "Oh - they copied the iPhone - then I guess it really doesn't matter which one I get?" Not that I'm an expert in public consumer habits, of course.
At the end of the day though I would imagine very little influence from this case will equate to sales or lack of sales.
Evidence of intent does have an impact on the jury, and makes specific claims of infringement by Apple much easier to accept.
To date, evidence so far offered by Apple points to at least indifference to IP on the part of Samsung.
Think of it as a beach read for lawyers. Over with plenty time for jury to focus on getting done before Labor Day weekend.
All I know is that Samsung will either stop copying or producing these memos.
I think everyone knows which.
everytime you say fanboy and make these silly generalizations you lose credibility (not that you had a lot or really any to begin with). You come across as a "fanboy" too...sadly you clearly don't see it.
To start from, yes. To copy? Lack of effort and innovation.
To be fair - you don't know what has impacted or not impacted the jury since one has to assume you aren't ON the jury.
And if the jurors on this case are instructed as I've been instructed on past cases - they have to go by the facts of the case - not what can be inferred.
IE - I was on a jury for a violent crime. In the jurors room - not ONE of us doubted the guilt of the person (and we all disliked his attorney as well). But we all - unfortunately - voted unanimously (without much debate) that the evidence against him was circumstantial and there weren't enough facts - causing reasonable doubt. I know this case is patent and not a violent crimes suit - but my point is - the jury has to and can only consider the facts presented and testimony in their ruling.
Personally - whether they had intent is important - but only when coupled with their execution. Intent alone - as it relates to this case - isn't enough (for me). Especially when it comes to an internal document.
Does it help Apple's case. Probably - if Apple can also prove they executed on it. Otherwise it's just a company critiquing their product against another. Again - in my opinion
You will win in two ways: 1. Apple will continue innovating, which improves the choice of products you can buy. 2. Samsung might start innovating instead of copying, which might also improve the choice of products you can buy.
There is a tendency (necessity?) on the Samsung side to take an action, reduce it to it's minimum definition, state that in principle it is normal, and dismiss the action as a whole as irrelevant.
Nobody is claiming that you can't look at what the competition is doing and react accordingly. That is not the principle in question here.
Of course some poor intern was probably given the task of producing this long document highlighting things that Apple does better and how they can be imitated or paralleled. And of course that is normal.
But you combine that methodology with the hundreds of side-to-side comparisons of features and designs Samsung did implement that are virtual carbon-copies, and you've established both the crime and the pattern/mode of operation.
The cumulative result of all this is such that the image you are left with is that in 2007, Samsung went on a mission: build an iPhone.
1. Apple will continue innovating win or lose in this case.
2. Samsung innovate as much if not more than Apple. See their patents granted per year, not to mention their newer offerings.
Win or Lose, no matter the side, there's only 1 true winner : the lawyers.
Apple implemented notifications in MacOS 9, released 1999. So people can very well argue who put notifications on which phone first, but Apple had notifications more than 12 years ago.
Not really. When buying a SSD, I choose the one that works well and doesn't fail. I don't go and buy crappy drives that fail after a short while just because they all look the same and all are essentially SSDs. Essentially, I'd buy an SSD from a well known company rather than a knock-off.
Another example: When buying a replacement battery for my Canon camera, I buy the OEM one that I know will work for me over the long run rather than an aftermarket piece that may cost 1/10 the cost of the OEM which may result in product failure or the POS lasting for only one use.
Know what I mean?
Another example: When buying a replacement battery for my Canon camera, I buy the OEM one that I know will work for me over the long run rather than an aftermarket piece that may cost 1/10 the cost of the OEM which may result in product failure or the POS lasting for only one use.
Know what I mean?
I would argue that Samsung's phones <> crap. But what would be the point as it's a matter of opinion. I, personally wouldn't equate one of their phones to some aftermarket/generic knock off. That's a little "much" for me
Depends on how far you want to go back - a form of notifications to terminals was present on mainframe systems way before that. You could even argue that an incoming call alert is a notification and so present on the very first mobiles.
Notifications aren't new but the way they are presented to the user has changed to fit the device they are being displayed upon.
Can someone please explain to me what motivation some of the posters on here have to defending Samsung so vigorously?
It is almost as if some of them have something to gain or lose from this trial or the effort of defending Samsung in this forum.
It is almost as if some of them have something to gain or lose from this trial or the effort of defending Samsung in this forum.