The fact is that they did not come up with these ideas, they got them from Apple, what you consider a copy (pixel identical) escapes conceptual design, and indeed nuances. Wether this will have any baring on the court case I have no idea, the interesting thing to me is, what in fact went down at Samsung HQ.
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
The fact is that they did not come up with these ideas, they got them from Apple, what you consider a copy (pixel identical) escapes conceptual design, and indeed nuances. Wether this will have any baring on the court case I have no idea, the interesting thing to me is, what in fact went down at Samsung HQ.
Think you're viewing damning and guilty as one and the same thing when they're not (to me at least).
There were a number of pieces of evidence that made Google look bad and that at minimum they knew they were doing something dodgy and in my view were in the wrong. But none of that means they broke the law or were guilty of what they were accused of, as shown by the verdict.
It's the same with Samsung, in my view they copied Apple and that document is strong evidence of that (especially in isolation). But again, that doesn't mean they've actually done anything wrong. They could win but it won't change how that document looks or reads.
You really don't help your argument by continually misstating facts. There isn't a "few flaws" listed as you state, there is over 100. Posting one or even a few (as in 3, not over 100) examples to support your point doesn't prove it, there are plenty in there which pretty much state copy the iPhone.
Who says they had meant to or not? I never suggested they "meant to" - they either did or didn't. And that's based on whether or not there are other documents and whether or not the lawyers believed it would help their strategy. Since we don't know whether the documents exist or what the strategy is - we certainly can't call them fools, now can we?
As for other documents (if they exist) opens them up to scrutiny from other manufacturers - that's not proof they copy. That's proof they looked at all the competition (or who they perceived as competition) and did the best-of-breed. Or intended to.
I can't use my Skyrocket as a reference. I'm on ICS and Samsung's UI has changed since this case was files at least twice. As for trade dress - the box that my phone came in was ATT's - not Samsungs. And I can't see how anyone would consider the Skyrocket and the iPhone and confuse the two in design. They are vastly different in build materials, size, shape, etc. But that's me.
As I said it's unlikely there will be a fatal blow for either side. Though the patents Apple have included in the suit could be damaging for Android - the "overscroll bounce", "scrolling api" and "tap to zoom and navigate".
If Apple got a total win (which I'd guess is highly unlikely) then it would set a precedent with other manufacturers looking at having to pay out as well. Though I'm not sure which other devices used them and if they are still present in current devices.
I kind of hope one side gets a fatal blow though, so they are forced to settle and everyone can move on from these constant law suits.
You realize - when it comes to law, "pretty much" isn't really grounds, right? I know it's semantics and your word choice. But the case won't be won if they can only say that it "pretty much" does anything.
At the start of this lawsuit I though it was bs. Samsung was just innovating to compete but not directly copying. Now it seems pretty clear that Samsung actually did directly copy the iPhone.
At this point, this is more likely to be Apple on the FRAND patents by Samsung though. That issue will be settled no matter what. It's not an issue that Apple has to pay, they do and pretty much agree, they just want to argue they shouldn't pay what Samsung is asking for.
I know you can't, but i certainly can call them fools if they have other documents proving they do this all the time and they don't provide those. Again, it's common sense. If they don't provide them, it's because they don't exist.
Confused. And why wouldn't they want this being known?
Sure you can. Touchwiz has changed, it hasn't been overhauled twice. Any copied elements will still mostly exist.
Trade dress (as far as packaging and size and shape) is stupid. I don't believe Apple will win that part of the case.
It's not even semantics - it's called not reading my entire post and then taking one phrase and quoting it out of context.
Again, I go back to my example I posted in response to you. Where did they get their solution from Apple ? Their solution is different than Apple's!
Keep evading and going around in circles, after all, you always do. Just like that time in the programming forum where you insisted both me and chown were wrong even after we posted post after post of evidence showing it was you that was the whole time.
Until you respond to my example, we're done. Don't ask for evidence if you don't look at what is posted and don't even respond it, but just keep repeating your "party line". That's just poor discussion.
Sort of like taking this one document and immediately drawing the conclusion that it provides unequivocal proof Samsung copied, huh?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether legally this meets a standard re: copying. However, I can definitely tell how this looks to a jury. You have Apple's assertion that Samsung copied iPhone, and here is an internal document stating they are making the Samsung phone more like the iPhone. This is the equivalent of having an injured person appear before the jury with obvious suffering. Despite all else presented in the trial, they're remember this one thing. And it's horribly damning. If I were Samsung, I would try to settle immediately, and license the involved patents from Apple, if they let you.
Apart from legally, it ethically looks really bad. It is one thing to study how other companies solve problems. It is another to simply adopt their ideas and designs, which were arrived at after an enormous amount of trial and error and brainstorming. Especially when only one other design was used for comparison, rather than comparing the way Apple, Nokia, RIM, etc. addressed the same issue. And it would be nice (for Samsung) if the report were to find even one area where they could see "our design is better, so keep it"; or even, "Apple does it this way, we do it that way, here's a 3rd way that's better than either." There's none of that in the report; all of the solutions are basically "Make it look like the iPhone."
Dave
Apart from legally, it ethically looks really bad. It is one thing to study how other companies solve problems. It is another to simply adopt their ideas and designs, which were arrived at after an enormous amount of trial and error and brainstorming. Especially when only one other design was used for comparison, rather than comparing the way Apple, Nokia, RIM, etc. addressed the same issue. And it would be nice (for Samsung) if the report were to find even one area where they could see "our design is better, so keep it"; or even, "Apple does it this way, we do it that way, here's a 3rd way that's better than either." There's none of that in the report; all of the solutions are basically "Make it look like the iPhone."
Dave
No - not all of them.
Samsung should just throw their arms up and settle? What the what? Ridiculous suggestion in my opinion. Why on earth would they?
You say over 100, I say barely 132. Seriously, do you need how many UIs there are in an entire Smartphone OS ? 132 is nothing. I bet there's more on just Macrumors' website and that's just a single website.
I'm also not going to go through 1 by 1 and post them for you. I cited quite a few (1 on last page, but I posted quite a few others, so did kdarling). They all pretty much say the same thing. It's about matching the level of experience, not matching the experience itself.
Apple isn't even using this document to ascertain "copying", because frankly, that's poor evidence of it. Apple is only using this document as evidence to set up a "design ethos", basically that Samsung was using the iPhone while designing TouchWiz. I don't think even Samsung is denying this, they are the ones who brought up the document after all after they had opposed its inclusion (successfully probably since it wasn't included until their lawyer mentionned it).
----------
Sort of like taking this one document and immediately drawing the conclusion that it provides unequivocal proof Samsung copied, huh?
When that's not even what Apple is using the document for I might add.
I must say i do await the reactions of those defending Samsung if they lose. That could be a thread unto itself!
Then again, the reactions of those defending Apple would be great if Apple loses too, but i think more entertainment value lies on the Samsung side lol.
Then again, the reactions of those defending Apple would be great if Apple loses too, but i think more entertainment value lies on the Samsung side lol.
No. Forum members here sure are though, aren't they?
----------
I must say i do await the reactions of those defending Samsung if they lose. That could be a thread unto itself!
Then again, the reactions of those defending Apple would be great if Apple loses too, but i think more entertainment value lies on the Samsung side lol.
Losing and winning will also be up to interpretation based on what the verdict is and how the appeals go.
It will be popcorn entertainment from all angles. No one the better or greater.
Ultimately - it won't "prove" anything - court cases often don't. It will just mean that legally, X occurred.
Just like a case I sat on as a jury. The fact that the defendant was found not guilty has nothing do to with proof he did or didn't do the crime.
You picked one example out of more than 100. What about all the examples in the document where the "directions for improvement" were "do what they did on the iPhone"?
I don't think this document is any sort of smoking gun. Without seeing how close Samsung's final implementation is to the iPhone for these features, it's just getting ideas from a competitor which is perfectly normal.
I think the value of this document to Apple's case is to demonstrate the degree to which Samsung studied Apple's design. Which would undermine Samsung's argument that the physical designs were developed independently of the iPhone when it comes to the trade dress and design patent claims.
I'm clearly talking about legally. Must we argue semantics there too??
If Samsung is found to infringe, the reaction will be hilarious regardless of whether they actually did or not. but if we start arguing semantics at that point to, it'll become evident that you guys just think the legal system is a complete and irrelevant joke lol. So really why bother even discussing this?
What does a phone made in Korea (a US ally) have to do with Pearl Harbor day? Why would you even mention that?
Notification Center for JB iPhones came after the Android notification center. The former is from August 2008 and the later from February 2008
He hasn't destroyed nothing
Hey KnightRider, samcraig, kdarling, prime... shouldn't you guys be on a Samsung forum somewhere? Oh Wait... maybe this IS a Samsung forum only it LOOKS like a Mac forum. Darnit, I got fooled again!!!
POW!
Or maybe you're blinded by your affinity for Apple and not looking at this objectively? POW!!
----------
So then he did destroy something?
In Apple's implementation the number adapts to fit on the screen, in Samsung's example it doesn't. The suggestion for improvement is to take this idea and adapt it so that it fits. It's not an original idea they came up with, it's taken from how the iPhone handles this.
When was this again, 6 months or a year ago, lol? You did not came with "evidence" in that case at all, you just disputed what I said. I was fairly sure I was right, but it was a pretty long time after I had installed my OS. It ended with me, admitting that I was wrong and was mistaken. It can happen the best. What is a poor discussion, is throwing accusations around and bringing up year old threads.
I must say i do await the reactions of those defending Samsung if they lose. That could be a thread unto itself!
Then again, the reactions of those defending Apple would be great if Apple loses too, but i think more entertainment value lies on the Samsung side lol.
Once again, you confuse arguing the facts of the case with "defending Samsung".
Hey KnightRider, samcraig, kdarling, prime... shouldn't you guys be on a Samsung forum somewhere? Oh Wait... maybe this IS a Samsung forum only it LOOKS like a Mac forum. Darnit, I got fooled again!!!
POW!
So we heed the Apple line with everything that Apple does.
Are you the same guy that told us Apple doesn't need our disloyalty in the Mountain Lion thread.