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

[babyj]

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.

I'm sure there is some truth in what you say but I think you're over playing it.

If other companies were close and had similar technology almost ready, what happened to it? Why was the iPhone so disruptive? Why why major established manufacturers left in the blocks? Where are their patents? Where are the phones? Where is the evidence?

Even Microsoft had to pretty much go back to square one and re-invent their mobile platform with Windows 8 and (arguably) we're seeing evidence of what Samsung did.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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?

And yet again you have no clue or understanding how engineering design works and the process.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Absolutely. But what the original iPhone did better than any other phone before it was why it was so important. Not the things it couldn't do.

It was a very nice feature phone that people liked to play with because it was shiny and new.

That's just bull.

Phones like the iPhone were already in the market - just not as popular.

Only if you ignore everything important about the iPhone.

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.

And what OS were these phone running?

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.

The only way I could think that you would come to these conclusions is if you are only considering the hardware.

 

[ARandomFellow]

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?

Anyone have a Samsung phone now? How does this work on their current phones? Transparent overlay in the middle of the display, perhaps? I don't know, I'm just asking.

One thing that I would like to see, if I were on the jury for this trial (and of course I'd like to see it as a point of interest as a consumer), is examples of Samsung's similar comparisons to other phones besides the iPhone and also Apple's similar documents, if they exist. If I were Samsung, and I'm saying that we do this kind of thing all the time and there's nothing wrong with it, and so does Apple, then part of the defense when it's my turn to present evidence and call witnesses is to produce 100's of these kinds of documents and show how we suggest 130 pages of similar features to adopt from all our competitors. And I would subpoena Apple's competitive analysis documents and show where they do substantially the same thing. And then I say "See? I told you so".

I don't know or claim to know the law in this case, so whether or not that supports the legal claims being made I can't say. But it would make me more comfortably able to find in Samsung's favor if I understood that this is just how these things happen and that this is something that is done by both parties in a similar fashion. I suspect though, that it is not. I'd also like to see documentation of their discussions that don't relate at all to the iPhone and I'd like to see how the design of these things evolved independently, since that is what Samsung is suggesting. Where's the documents of the evolving design of those products that give their rationale for choosing the specific shapes and designs in question by Apple. If they can't produce anything that doesn't reference iPhone, then I think they will have a hard time convincing the jury that they just evolved at the same time in the same direction that Apple did.

 

[boronathan]

And what OS were these phone running?

I'm curious about this too. If these phantom phones existed, what os were they running and who was making them.

 

[BaldiMac]

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

Are you saying that right and wrong can only be determined emotionally?!?

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

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Emotion is not the only enemy of objectivity. Or are you saying that an emotional reaction to a conclusion makes the conclusion non-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).

And yet you haven't quoted the law a single time.

 

[samcraig]

Absolutely. But what the original iPhone did better than any other phone before it was why it was so important. Not the things it couldn't do.

That's just bull. No - the opinion if myself and my circle of family, friends and colleagues. It was a new toy to play with. Nothing more and certainly not useful for their needs based on other phones that were already available.

Only if you ignore everything important about the iPhone. That's subjective.

And what OS were these phone running? I honestly don't remember. But is this argument about OS, Hardware or only both. I wasn't being specific.

The only way I could think that you would come to these conclusions is if you are only considering the hardware.

The software interactions - whatever the OS was on these units I saw both in the lab and on paper responded like the original iOS. LIKE. Not the same. I take issue with people who want to insist no other manufacturer had a touchscreen phone in the marketplace or immediately copied the iPhone. It's just not true.

 

[Technarchy]

Phones like the iPhone were already in the market - just not as popular.

Name one capacitive, multi-touch, minimalist designed, keyboard-less, numeric keypad-less phone sold before the iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

The software interactions - whatever the OS was on these units I saw both in the lab and on paper responded like the original iOS. LIKE. Not the same.

That's conveniently vague.

I take issue with people who want to insist no other manufacturer had a touchscreen phone in the marketplace

I would too. Who did that here?

or immediately copied the iPhone. It's just not true.

I disagree. But, of course, this just leads to unresolveable argument about what it means to copy.



EDIT: I just realized you responded within my quote.

No - the opinion if myself and my circle of family, friends and colleagues. It was a new toy to play with. Nothing more and certainly not useful for their needs based on other phones that were already available.

And I think your opinion is bull.

That's subjective.

Not at all. You have to ignore everything that made the original iPhone special to claim that phones like it were already on the market.

 

[ARandomFellow]

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.

I don't think it really matters much whether I'm turned off enough to not buy anything of theirs, because in just doing a quick look around me at the various devices and electronics that I own, I don't seem to own a single Samsung branded product.

However, I am aware that some of the innards of my iPhone and probably the screen are Samsung products... and I believe they also make a lot of other products that are probably part of the innards of other products I own. So I probably have a fair bit of Samsung made stuff in and around my house, even if none of it actually says Samsung on it.

But basically, as I said in another post (or maybe the same one, I'm not sure) I'm turned off enough that before I consider a Samsung branded product, I'll take a little time and try to figure out who they ripped off the feature(s) that are important to me from and see if I like their implementation better. I have to say that in my search for the various electronics I own, I"ve never been tempted by a Samsung product that I recall. TV's maybe. WHen I was looking at a flat screen, there was a pretty Samsung in the running. Ultimately I went with an LG. Possibly because they were substantially similar and the LG cost less or was on sale or something, I don't remember. Otherwise, I don't really remember seeing any Samsung products and thinking "ooh!" based on it being particularly better or prettier or anything than the competition.

 

[Geckotek]

Are you saying that right and wrong can only be determined emotionally?!?

No, I'm saying the legallity of it should only be approached objectively.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Emotion is not the only enemy of objectivity. Or are you saying that an emotional reaction to a conclusion makes the conclusion non-objective?

I'm saying if you approach a subject with emotion that it is difficult to be objective.

And yet you haven't quoted the law a single time.

It's not neccessary to quote a law to discuss it's legality.

When/why did you turn on me?

 

[BaldiMac]

No, I'm saying the legallity of it should only be approached objectively.

But that's not what we were discussing. You said that it was a problem to discuss right and wrong instead of legal or illegal. And that right and wrong is driven by emotion.

I'm saying if you approach a subject with emotion that it is difficult to be objective.

Maybe, but again, not what we were discussing.

It's not neccessary to quote a law to discuss it's legality.

But it's necessary to know the law to discuss the legality objectively.

When/why did you turn on me?

Didn't turn on you. Just discussing something that you said that I disagree with.

 

[samcraig]

Name one capacitive, multi-touch, minimalist designed, keyboard-less, numeric keypad-less phone sold before the iPhone.

I'm not going to play your game. We've done this dance. We clearly don't agree on what constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch at the iPhone. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

I love how Samsung thought the glow effect was nice, used it for their own product, and now everyone is freaking out about it.

YOU CAN'T USE OVERBRIGHT GLOW EFFECTS! APPLE DID IT FIRST, AND IT'S PROOF YOU JUST STRAIGHT UP RIPPED OFF IOS BECAUSE IT HAD OVERBRIGHT GLOW EFFECTS BEFORE YOU DID!

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not going to play your game. We've done this dance. We clearly don't agree on what constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch at the iPhone. Let's just agree to disagree.

Because you have a completely unreasonable definition of what constitutes a similar phone. And you won't even share that with us.

 

[Technarchy]

I'm not going to play your game. We've done this dance. We clearly don't agree on what constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch at the iPhone. Let's just agree to disagree.

So what exactly do you think "constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch of the iPhone"?

Because being capacitive, multi-touch, minimalist designed, keyboard-less and numeric keypad-less are what defined the iPhone at launch.

 

[LagunaSol]

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.

Amazingly, they can't. They'll bring up Pradas and Treos and gosh-awful WinMo devices, then throw in the classic "well, Apple copied Xerox" chestnut for good measure. And hey, Apple didn't really revolutionize anything - the entire industry was headed in that direction anyway. Apple just, by happenstance, got there first.

You can't reason with an Android fanatic.

I'm not going to play your game. We've done this dance. We clearly don't agree on what constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch at the iPhone. Let's just agree to disagree.

Translation: "I really don't have an answer to that."

 

[BaldiMac]

Because being capacitive, multi-touch, minimalist designed, keyboard-less and numeric keypad-less are what defined the iPhone at launch.

Hardware-wise. The software was the revolutionary differentiator.

 

[aristotle]

For a start this isnt all the evidence the trial is due to run for the month of August. So it's wise to remain objective we've no idea how this evidence will play out it could be the smoking gun your implying or it could be insignificate by the end.
It's hardly objective to say on this piece of evidence the trial is over till all the evidence from both sides is out, only then can we all form an opinion on it. And let's be honest all our opinions aren't important as we're not on the jury.

It's hardly objective to ignore the evidence or try to explain it way. It is right there in front of your face.

As far as I know, nobody here is involved with trial and if anyone was, participating in the forum discussion could be viewed as contempt of court.

 

[The13thDoctor]

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

Then 2009 it is. The Wikipedia article says 2011, so thats where I got it.

 

[samcraig]

Because you have a completely unreasonable definition of what constitutes a similar phone. And you won't even share that with us.

And I think the list of criteria make it impossible to find a 1:1 match - so it's moot. I said similar. Not the identical.

So what exactly do you think "constitutes a similar phone at the time of launch of the iPhone"?

Because being capacitive, multi-touch, minimalist designed, keyboard-less and numeric keypad-less are what defined the iPhone at launch.

Look up the word similar. Seriously.

 

[BaldiMac]

And I think the list of criteria make it impossible to find a 1:1 match - so it's moot. I said similar. Not the identical.

Look up the word similar. Seriously.

Again, hiding behind vague claims, when you are clearly implying something more specific is just bull.

The first phone that someone could reasonably say was similar to the iPhone in the ways that matter was the first Android phone released 21 months after the iPhone was announced.

 

[slattery69]

It's hardly objective to ignore the evidence or try to explain it way. It is right there in front of your face.

As far as I know, nobody here is involved with trial and if anyone was, participating in the forum discussion could be viewed as contempt of court.

Been objective means viewing the whole case not just segments to fit your own decision that your reached before the trial began. I will wait till everything's come out before calling one side a copier or the other side obvious
Correct no one is involved in the case in this discussion so in reality none of our opinions really matter or have a bearing on the case. Still makes for interesting reading a work none the less

 

[ARandomFellow]

And I think the list of criteria make it impossible to find a 1:1 match - so it's moot. I said similar. Not the identical.

That's pretty much the argument that Samsung hopes will hold water. Well, gosh... our phones were already rectangles and they had rounded corners and there were icons. So we didn't copy anything. But the devil is in the details. If you can seriously look at Samsung's previous designs and see anything like the original Galaxy S even hinted at, I want some of what you're smoking. That phone is an obscenity of copying. I can't speak to some of their other phones, because obviously they have branched off from there, but looking at that phone from the front, it's clear that they built an iPhone and then made the button square and added the other buttons that were required by their use of Android and then they tweaked the back a bit so as to provide plausible deniability that they copied completely. I don't see how anyone can look at that phone, in particular and have any doubt. The bezel is the same... the arrangement of everything is the same. The packaging is the same... the charger is even the same design, and they didn't use that charger design previously, so... how can you who are defending them NOT see that and come to the conclusion that there's a little more here than randomly evolving along the same path at the same time? Seriously, are you that naive?

Legal or not, it's pretty pathetic. I mean, compete on your own terms, Samsung. Make something that isn't just like everyone else, but just different enough that we're not quite actually making cheap knockoffs for sale by guys in trenchcoats on the street.

It seems to me like Samsung is a great technology company that is not a great consumer product company, but really really wants to be.

 

[Geckotek]

Maybe, but again, not what we were discussing.

It's what I'm discussing and it's what the article is about (a court trial, not a public opinion trial).

But it's necessary to know the law to discuss the legality objectively.

True, not sure why that means the specific law must be quoted. And in the areas where I am unfamiliar with the specific (trade dress) I've looked up and educated myself on the law and asked questions trying to learn more about it. I'm not judging Samsung on Apple on what I think is right or wrong, I'm doing my best to judge them based on the laws governing the case.