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

[ARandomFellow]

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.

I guess factually you are correct. They don't really say "Copy the iPhone", but they do generally suggest imitating the iPhone's solutions. I don't know how that plays into the legal situation. But it seems obvious that they did in fact choose to adopt a lot of iPhone features because their design was not as good. It's interesting how you choose to twist reality. "made usability improvements based on the fact that their initial designs had flaws the competition didn't have" doesn't sound like a euphemism for "copy" to you? Because that's really what you're saying. And again, I don't know that this suggests anything related to the legal issues at stake in this case, but to me it shows a culture of using others' hard earned work to improve your own product. Why not just hire better designers and do it yourself? It's not like Samsung doesn't have money.

Combine this document with the other document that also came out clearly stating the Samsung's belief that there was a heaven and earth difference between iPhone and Samsung's phones at the time and it's clear that Samsung was caught flatfooted by the iPhone (as was every other smartphone manufacturer) and chose to 'compete' by borrowing ideas from the iPhone wholesale. That's a pretty different picture of their portrayal of the similarity to their later phones to the iPhone as a natural progression they were already on before the iPhone came out.

What does that mean for the patent case? I don't know because I'm neither a lawyer or a judge. But as a consumer, and someone who values ethical behavior, I'm pretty turned off on Samsung. Perhaps my mind will be changed when Samsung starts calling witnesses and their evidence comes out.

You know what I would like to see from them? If this is a typical document that they produce about all their competitors, I'd like to see some of the others where they suggest implementing so many similar ideas. If they did that, and the subpoena of Apple's records also shows them producing similar documents and with similar suggestions, then I guess I'd accept that that is just how business is done in the electronics world and agree that this is a BS case. My suspicion is that yes, these kinds of documents probably exist, but that the feature for feature comparison doesn't consistently say things like "we should implement a feature like this one" for 160+ pages. There's a difference between borrowing one or two ideas from your competitors when you see they've done something particularly interesting and borrowing EVERY idea from your competitors that differentiates them from you. I mean, really... even the packaging? The design of the charger? Samsung couldn't even make THAT without having to copy?

 

[Geckotek]

Why is that a problem? He was very clear that he wasn't talking about legality. As he said, this isn't a legal forum.

Because it means people's arguments are being driven by emotion which makes them no longer objective.

 

[BaldiMac]

I used mobilenotifier and the alpha came out 2009 from memory 6 to 12 months after android demoed there s

According to Wikipedia, mobilenotifier alpha 1 was released in Oct 2010.

----------

Because it means people's arguments are being driven by emotion which makes them no longer objective.

No, it doesn't.

And no one commenting in here is objective.

 

[Sora]

Oh Samsung. You remind me of the kid sitting behind me in algebra peeking over my shoulder copying my answers.

Directions for Improvement: Give a luxurious feel by proving a slow transition effect when icon click status changes

Translation: Copy what Apple did - completely and fully.

How about a new direction for improvement: Develop a novel way to provide a status change that is better than existing methods while imbuing the spirit of our unique innovation into our products.

 

[foodog]

Samsungs r&d budget is almost 100 times larger than apples.

True but they make quite a few more things. Just about every type of electronic device, household appliances, and components for lots of other companies products... they should have a R&D budget 1000 times larger.

Apple is pretty specialized with the products it builds. Samsung is the exact opposite.

 

[slattery69]

According to Wikipedia, mobilenotifier alpha 1 was released in Oct 2010.

----------



No, it doesn't.

And no one commenting in here is objective.

Cheers for that must have had my iPhone longer than I thought. So nearly 2 years after the android demo. Time flies

 

[Geckotek]

No, it doesn't.

And no one commenting in here is objective.

Sure it does. If you're already "irked", I SERIOUSLY doubt you left that emotion behind when you started developing an opinion on this case.

And I'm not sure why you think nobody is objective. That statment seems to conflict directly with your first statement.

 

[samcraig]

But as a consumer, and someone who values ethical behavior, I'm pretty turned off on Samsung.

Just curious. Samsung in whole - or their mobile division? And are you turned off enough to not purchase one of their products - even if it's exactly what you want and needed. I'm asking sincerely - not sarcastically. I also ask because many people are outraged at companies buy still use their services and products. I know many people who abhor Chick-Fil-A's CEO and his comments about gay marriage but still eat there for one reason or another. I think it's great to stick to one's convictions. I know that it's also probably really hard to have so many that it eliminates being able to do just about anything or use any product.

At the end of this trial and all appeals - I don't think customers, in general - will care either way.

According to Wikipedia, mobilenotifier alpha 1 was released in Oct 2010.

Well as long as it's reported on Wikipedia it MUST be true I know.. I know.. but I really couldn't help it

 

[twosee]

True - but Apple also had the benefit of studying years of products and technologies before entering into the market. Millions of hours and dollars in R&D. And they borrowed (not going to argue semantics, etc) from the entire industry. Some they have paid for - some they are still working out their "deals." Samsung was already in the phone industry. And was a major player. It's not like it was a brand new company that came in after Apple and simply copied the iPhone without any past history in the industry. I think if that happened - it would be a very different scenario.

All companies game whatever system they can until they are caught and then they either stop or buy their way out of it pretty much. Look at all the companies paying pennies on the dollar for taxes. Yes - their are tax loopholes - but that sucks too, doesn't it?

Personally I don't believe these cases have anything to do with ego of design or patents. It's about money. Period. Samsung is serious competition where before it could be argued there was little against Apple. If Samsung wasn't selling their phones - Apple probably wouldn't care about these patents. Or at least care a LOT less.

Of course everyone "borrows". I'm not naive to think that Apple or Microsoft or Google don't "borrow" ideas. But the way I see it (and I'm not privy to any of Apple's R&D... need to clarify that because it's easy to get bullied in here), Apple chose to look at what worked, what didn't, across multiple sources, and designed a way to gel it all together. They researched, tested, tweaked where necessary... didn't just say "Eh, lets look like this one" and call it a day.

Again, I'm not on Apple side because they are Apple. I am on the side of protecting ones hard work. I want to continue to see people push forward like Google is doing with search, like Amazon did with online shopping and Sam Walton did with Inventory Control.

 

[WordMasterRice]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand why this is a bad thing for anyone?

Do you people never come up with ideas, or never look to other companies for inspiration when it comes to your ideas? I can't imagine that anybody who has ever made something put blinders on and completely ignored everything else in the world until their product was done. Everything creative is done with the sum of a persons past experiences and the iPhone is part of most peoples life experiences in some way shape or form.

 

[Sora]

This has to be one of the better examples of why innovating is important and copying is something to be avoided.

The directions for Improvement are an actual step by step description of how to create the exact graphical overlay of the Apple's implementation of volume adjustment notification.

I know for a fact there are people posting on this forum claiming to have read the entire 132 page document while still remaining obtuse in their opinions. Did you manage to skip over this little pg 49 gem?

 

[dermeister]

True - but Apple also had the benefit of studying years of products and technologies before entering into the market. Millions of hours and dollars in R&D. And they borrowed (not going to argue semantics, etc) from the entire industry. Some they have paid for - some they are still working out their "deals." Samsung was already in the phone industry. And was a major player. It's not like it was a brand new company that came in after Apple and simply copied the iPhone without any past history in the industry. I think if that happened - it would be a very different scenario.

Apple came into a mature market, and sure therefore benefitted from developments before that - namely phone technology.

They then put a phone card into an iPod running a modified version of OS X, and -revolutionized- the industry on both the hardware and software sides.

Samsung was already there, and Apple woke them up, which is good. But based on what is seen, they spent their time creating not a competing product, but almost an homage-device... their own iPhone.

If they had just been smarter about it, they could have gotten away with it. But everything was so shamelessly copied, right down to the colour of the icons... It was just too much.

On the hardware side, it was again too blatant - worse event than the software I would say. If they had not been so brazen and hadn't copied the chrome ring... They might have gotten away with it, again, but it's too much.

Too much.

Personally I don't believe these cases have anything to do with ego of design or patents. It's about money. Period. Samsung is serious competition where before it could be argued there was little against Apple. If Samsung wasn't selling their phones - Apple probably wouldn't care about these patents. Or at least care a LOT less.

Of course - Samsung's infringement of trade-dress constitutes an illegal taking to the extent that Samsung benefits from brand-image confusion and makes sales at Apple's expense and damages Apple's brand by diminishing it's uniqueness.

It's not that it's "about money, so it's dirty" or something. The Apple executives are clearly pissed on a personal level. It's that money is the barometer you use to measure these things. The damages in a lawsuit are usually monetary because that's the only appropriate way of compensation.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure it does. If you're already "irked", I SERIOUSLY doubt you left that emotion behind when you started developing an opinion on this case.

That's just huge leaps in logic. Your complaint was about discussing right and wrong instead of legal or illegal. The difference has nothing to do with emotion. And being "irked" that someone did something that you consider wrong does not necessarily compromise your objectivity.

And I'm not sure why you think nobody is objective.

Because everyone's opinions are driven by their own experiences. The only way this discussion would be objective is if every opinion was based on strict adherence to mutually agreed principles. Which isn't happening.

That statment seems to conflict directly with your first statement.

Not in any way.

 

[Windlasher]

Hasn't anyone thought on the idea that Samsung is a Korean company where all the development happens in Korea?

Why would they make a document like this then in English? If it was real it would have been written in Korean!

it WAS - Written in english - The article said ...:translated:

 

[twosee]

And herein lies your problem. Being "irked" means you are already approaching this subject with an opinion of right and wrong instead of legal vs illegal.



To be fair, Samsung did a lot more than that, they still had to change the UI, edit the code, test, etc.... They just didn't do most of the R&D that Apple already did.

While I do see your points, I go back to "was it illegal?"

----------

Well, I am approaching it as a "right or wrong" subject. I am not an attorney, nor am I a judge and I am not a juror on the case. I don't know what the law states, but IMO they copied, and IMO it's wrong. I'd just like to see more leaders and fewer followers. And people who innovate... be it Apple or Google with search or Amazon with online shopping or Sam Walton with his inventory control system, should have some protection from other people jumping their trains. That's all.

 

[samcraig]

Of course everyone "borrows". I'm not naive to think that Apple or Microsoft or Google don't "borrow" ideas. But the way I see it (and I'm not privy to any of Apple's R&D... need to clarify that because it's easy to get bullied in here), Apple chose to look at what worked, what didn't, across multiple sources, and designed a way to gel it all together. They researched, tested, tweaked where necessary... didn't just say "Eh, lets look like this one" and call it a day.

Again, I'm not on Apple side because they are Apple. I am on the side of protecting ones hard work. I want to continue to see people push forward like Google is doing with search, like Amazon did with online shopping and Sam Walton did with Inventory Control.

I can respect that. And I hope you didn't think I was remotely saying or implying you were naive. I wasn't.

 

[ARandomFellow]

True - but Apple also had the benefit of studying years of products and technologies before entering into the market. Millions of hours and dollars in R&D. And they borrowed (not going to argue semantics, etc) from the entire industry. Some they have paid for - some they are still working out their "deals." Samsung was already in the phone industry. And was a major player. It's not like it was a brand new company that came in after Apple and simply copied the iPhone without any past history in the industry. I think if that happened - it would be a very different scenario.

All companies game whatever system they can until they are caught and then they either stop or buy their way out of it pretty much. Look at all the companies paying pennies on the dollar for taxes. Yes - their are tax loopholes - but that sucks too, doesn't it?

Personally I don't believe these cases have anything to do with ego of design or patents. It's about money. Period. Samsung is serious competition where before it could be argued there was little against Apple. If Samsung wasn't selling their phones - Apple probably wouldn't care about these patents. Or at least care a LOT less.

I think even the most rabid of Android or Samsung fans would have to agree that when the iPhone came out, it was different than everything else. Sure, it was a phone. It made calls. It certainly does do things that other phones at the time already did. Every aspect of it isn't revolutionary. But it was light years ahead of every other phone in terms of polish and architecture and design. No one had created a cell phone that had the near universal appeal of the iPhone. To your point about Apple having the benefit of studying years of products before entering the market... are you saying the other phone manufacturers didn't? How did Apple... a brand new player in the industry trump all of them so completely? I'll tell you my theory; they were able to do that because instead of mimicking the features of those they were about to compete with, they chose to improve the experience of the smart phone using their own ideas. They didn't start from the perspective of making a feature phone or a PDA with a phone built into it like everyone else was at the time. They started from scratch and built something different and better. Everyone else played catch up and is still playing catch up in some ways. They looked at how they wanted to be able to use a phone and they made that. That's what Samsung should be doing.

I think it's fine for all the phone companies to take an idea from each other here and there where it makes sense to. And certainly, they should also give credit where it's due (and in the case of companies, that means throwing a little cash the way of the person whose idea you borrowed). But I don't understand why all the phones suddenly became so iPhone-like and everyone who suggests that they support Samsung seems to think this was just some natural progression they were already embarked upon. Yet somehow the new guy got there first. So you're a major player in this market, with thousands of designers and they're all following their muses to arrive at smart phone nirvana with years and years and years of phone making experience... and the new guy to the party comes out with their FIRST phone and it makes all your previous phones look like toys and then suddenly all your new phones look like the new guy's. And Samsung expects everyone to believe that that's just natural progression at work. They were already on their way to making something iPhone-like. Nothing in any of their photos that they've released suggests at all that they were heading in that direction. Yes, they are correct about the rectangle with rounded corners being a decent shape for a smart phone. But what about that new Nokia Windows phone? That's a pretty hot phone and it looks nothing like an iPhone. Or even some of the other prototypes that Apple produced that we've all seen now. I'd have bought several of those (one looks a lot like the Nokia Windows phone... I really wish Apple would have made that one). A lot of them look nothing like what the iPhone ended up looking like. Yet Samsung suggests it is the only shape that makes sense. I don't understand how so many people can be so duped by such clearly wrong statements.

Now the question of whether any of that matters in a court of law is different. I don't know if what they do is infringing on any patents. I don't actually care that much. For me, it just suggests that if Samsung makes something, they probably borrowed the idea from someone else and maybe I should go take a look at that other thing before I consider dropping some hard-earned on a Samsung product because if they're willing to shortcut on design ideas, what other shortcuts do they take?

 

[twosee]

I can respect that. And I hope you didn't think I was remotely saying or implying you were naive. I wasn't.

Hahaha, not at all. And even if you were, I do not take things personal. Everyone has an opinion and they are entitled to it. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they aren't, but either way I'll respect it.

 

[samcraig]

I think even the most rabid of Android or Samsung fans would have to agree that when the iPhone came out, it was different than everything else. Sure, it was a phone. It made calls. It certainly does do things that other phones at the time already did. Every aspect of it isn't revolutionary. ...

Edited to save board space.

I think the original iPhone was slick. Having had one though - the ORIGINAL iPhone with the first iOS iteration - the phone itself wasn't very usable. I'll get blank stares for that. What I mean is - compared to the TREO I had at the time, while the interface and look was different - functionality was extremely limited. No exchange email. No real apps. No copy/paste. etc. It was a very nice feature phone that people liked to play with because it was shiny and new.

Phones like the iPhone were already in the market - just not as popular. And many were in the pipelines from the major manufacturers. I speak from experience having worked for one of the companies back then (no - not Samsung) and know that several phones in the pipeline before the iPhone was announced could easily be said to have copied the iPhone. Which would be an impossibility since it hadn't been announced yet.

I think there's a lot of confusion from people who think that as soon as the iPhone came out - everyone was copying them when the reality is - many were working in tandem. Apple just got there early (not first) and was wildly successful. That's not to say that since the iPhone came out - there hasn't been companies trying to rival Apple's success whether on their own or by adopting similar features.

 

[wkadamsjr]

This has to be one of the better examples of why innovating is important and copying is something to be avoided.

The directions for Improvement are an actual step by step description of how to create the exact graphical overlay of the Apple's implementation of volume adjustment notification.

I know for a fact there are people posting on this forum claiming to have read the entire 132 page document while still remaining obtuse in their opinions. Did you manage to skip over this little pg 49 gem?

I see it clearly. Samsung has agreed that Apple's way is better, and they need to improve by adopting an Apple-like approach. It does not say "Use a speaker with a transparent overlay in the middle of the display."

Do you believe Apple doesn't have similar documents in its R&D department regarding other companies?

 

[Geckotek]

That's just huge leaps in logic. Your complaint was about discussing right and wrong instead of legal or illegal. The difference has nothing to do with emotion. And being "irked" that someone did something that you consider wrong does not necessarily compromise your objectivity.



Because everyone's opinions are driven by their own experiences. The only way this discussion would be objective is if every opinion was based on strict adherence to mutually agreed principles. Which isn't happening.



Not in any way.

I don't think it's a huge leap at all. It's the next logical step.

Sure it does, if people can be irked and not be moved by their emotions, then they are being objective.

I'm not being driven by experience, I'm trying to determine what the law says about the situation and how it applies. I don't care if Samsung got an iPhone and copied it part-by-part if the law allows that (and I know it doesn't).

 

[ARandomFellow]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand why this is a bad thing for anyone?

Do you people never come up with ideas, or never look to other companies for inspiration when it comes to your ideas? I can't imagine that anybody who has ever made something put blinders on and completely ignored everything else in the world until their product was done. Everything creative is done with the sum of a persons past experiences and the iPhone is part of most peoples life experiences in some way shape or form.

This is the thing; It's not that everyone should put blinders on and ignore everything else in the world. But there's a difference between borrowing an idea or two from someone's product and outright copying of the entire product. Even the packaging and the charger is the same, for goodness sake.

You can't really believe that just because you see something, you have the right to copy it and sell it because it's part of your experience now, can you? So you don't believe innovation, in and of itself is valuable at all? Once someone has created something, everyone else should just be able to make one just like it with a few minor tweaks and call it their own? Where is anyone's incentive to innovate if a competitor can come in, copy your idea, add a couple bells and whistles and take your business, forcing you to compete by one upsmanship instead of working on the next great innovation (which everyone will just steal if its successful anyway)?

Competition is important. And sometimes protecting competition might mean having the appearance of restricting it. Samsung makes good phones. I don't understand why they don't make better phones than Apple instead of stealing ideas and then throwing on a bigger screen or faster processor or more memory and pretending like that's innovation. That's not innovation. That's just progression.

 

[Geckotek]

This has to be one of the better examples of why innovating is important and copying is something to be avoided.

That's a nice sentiment, but innovation is not so common.

Not everyone can have an original idea. It's just not possible. (Not saying it shouldn't be a goal though.)

----------

Well, I am approaching it as a "right or wrong" subject. I am not an attorney, nor am I a judge and I am not a juror on the case. I don't know what the law states, but IMO they copied, and IMO it's wrong. I'd just like to see more leaders and fewer followers. And people who innovate... be it Apple or Google with search or Amazon with online shopping or Sam Walton with his inventory control system, should have some protection from other people jumping their trains. That's all.

Unfortunately, that won't have any bearing in this case.

 

[samcraig]

Even the packaging and the charger is the same, for goodness sake.

Well to be fair - Samsung's charger is crap. They did a poor job of copying (at least quality build) because its a) not a solid/brick like and b) mine broke within a week compared to my Apple "cubes" which I've had for years.

 

[Geckotek]

Well to be fair - Samsung's charger is crap. They did a poor job of copying (at least quality build) because its a) not a solid/brick like and b) mine broke within a week compared to my Apple "cubes" which I've had for years.

I saw an article once talking about the Apple chargers and how they were built. Seems they use much better components than their competitors.

----------

Hasn't anyone thought on the idea that Samsung is a Korean company where all the development happens in Korea?

Why would they make a document like this then in English? If it was real it would have been written in Korean!

Samsung has a MAJOR smartphone division in the states.