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

[lucas107]

Either one can name something similar or not.

Even though a Colt M4 and AT4 both shoot projectiles, one would be hard pressed to call them similar.

both are weapons made to kill both achieve in the same way by shooting projectiles they are similar and it cant be argued

But you are missing an important step in the process... Apple chose to make a sandwich, using those ingredients, in a calculated way. Something like we need to use sesame buns, and add a thin layer of mayonnaise between the bread and the chicken so the chicken doesn't make the bread soggy. And then add the salt and pepper to the chicken because this produced the best flavor. We'll then add lettuce on top of the chicken followed by the tomato because this will give the best looking sandwich... appealing to the eye". Samsung came along and said "That's a great sandwich, lets make one just like it!".

Just because you give two people the same exact ingredients and lock them in a kitchen, it doesn't mean the meal will come out the same.

in the US there are around 1246367 R&D employees. so lets say you lock that many people in the kitchen with the same ingredients you really think there would be anything coming out that wasnt atleast very very close to something else coming out?

 

[BaldiMac]

That is why I won't engage (yet again) in the conversation with them. On other points sure - but not this one.

I am going to go with the fact that you can't actually defend what you said without regressing the statement to the point that it is pointless.

Can you please stop replying within the quote of my post? It makes it a pain to reply.

Says YOU. But who says your definition is the one everyone is going by. I'm certainly not.

And yet you still refuse to share what exactly you meant. You are just hiding behind vagaries.

No. It's a matter of opinions and how you define a smart phone or feature phone. You know - just like you want to define what "similar" means.

Yep. But calling the original iPhone a feature phone is still FUD. I could stretch the definition of personal computer to cover an iPhone. Doesn't mean I should call it that unless I want to intentionally mislead.

From your favorite source, Wikipedia "The distinction between smartphones and feature phones can be vague and there is no official definition for what constitutes the difference between them. One of the most significant differences is that the advanced application programming interfaces (APIs) on smartphones for running third-party applications[4] can allow those applications to have better integration with the phone's OS and hardware than is typical with feature phones. In comparison, feature phones more commonly run on proprietary firmware, with third-party software support through platforms such as Java ME or BREW.[1] An additional complication in distinguishing between smartphones and feature phones is that over time the capabilities of new models of feature phones can increase to exceed those of phones that had been promoted as smartphones in the past.

I would say that the fact that the iPhone didn't run 3rd party apps could exclude it from being considered a smart phone. Other people can argue. But it's hardly FUD to call the original iPhone when it launched a feature phone

Of course, the definition you provided doesn't actually support your position, but I suppose that doesn't matter.

It's just as valid as any of your points.

Are we back in third grade?

Are you kidding? The original email client was superior? Did you even use an original iPhone with the original iOS. It was horrible. And email is a HUGE part of a smartphone/feature phone both then and now. Web Browsing I agree. Blackberries and Palm Treos had much better email management. Being able to use multitouch didn't make the email client superior. That's like the old expression - putting lipstick on a pig.

Of course, better is subjective. Hence the reason I said "arguably superior." Depends on what is important to you. I consider the fact that it properly formatted HTML emails a huge advance over existing clients. In addition to many other niceties.

 

[Renzatic]

Not necessarily. One stole a bunch of ingredients and made a sandwich... the other stole the sandwich.

...now I'm hungry.

 

[Technarchy]

both are weapons made to kill both achieve in the same way by shooting projectiles they are similar and it cant be argued

Technically deploy, engage, and destroy. Death and killing are incidental.

 

[twosee]

both are weapons made to kill both achieve in the same way by shooting projectiles they are similar and it cant be argued


in the US there are around 1246367 R&D employees. so lets say you lock that many people in the kitchen with the same ingredients you really think there would be anything coming out that wasnt atleast very very close to something else coming out?

if those 1.2 million work at only 4 or 5 different restaurants and come up with only 4 or 5 different dishes... chances are slim that they would be so similar

 

[lucas107]

Technically deploy, engage, and destroy. Death and killing are incidental.

if you really believe that any modern weapon (non lethal excluded)was not made with the intent to kill people then i doubt i can change your mind

 

[ARandomFellow]

http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2007/4165.htm

Seriously? The PRada phone. That's your argument. This is the kind of argument that people make when they have no argument. In broad strokes, the Prada phone bears minor resemblance to an iPhone. But this is exactly why Samsung should not use this as an example of 'prior art'. The PRada phone's UI is completely different. Notice there's no colors on their launch screen. Note that they put the home bar on the right side. Note how they have a big, wide button on the bottom rather than something with similar dimensions to the iPhone and Galaxy phones. Yes, it's a rectangle with rounded corners. But as a product, it bears no resemblance to an iPhone or a Galaxy phone.

Take a look at this comparison of the Galaxy S next to an iPhone: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html if the Galaxy S were only as similar to the iPhone as the iPhone is to the Prada, no one would be in court over this. But all you have to do is look at those two next to each other.

If you're silly enough to believe that Samsung independently (and three years later) designed a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone from the front with only minor distinguishing features, you seriously have to be delusional.

And I'll add one more thing... I don't even know if what they did is illegal. It is obviously not an exact copy. But it's close enough that I can be sure that they spent a lot of time duplicating things from the iPhone and not enough time thinking originally, so as a consumer, I think they are limiting my choices by being so similar to something else.

To the legal point though... and I'm admittedly a lay person and only guessing based on having read Samsung's response to Apple's complaint (while on an even more boring and tedious conference call lol) and the way that they present their legal stance... they hang their defense on the idea that in the case of a design patent, an infringing product has to be similar enough that a consumer considering making a purchase must be convinced that it is the same product that they will purchase the infringing product instead of the patented product. Outside of the quotations from legal briefings and such, Samsung's lawyers frame this in such a way as to make it sound like it basically has to be a situation where the infringing product is a knockoff completely masquerading as the other product. Since Apple obviously has pretty good lawyers too, and they brought this case knowing that despite the extreme similarities between the two products, most people doing their due diligence (ignoring that it says Samsung on the box and not iPhone) would realize they are in fact not buying an iPhone, my guess would be that their argument will be that a knowledgeable consumer while they may not purchase a Samsung phone believing that it is an iPhone MAY purchase one believing that it is equivalent in every way, design wise, and therefore pretty much an iPhone that says Samsung on it. Just a guess on my part, though. I would love to be in that court room. Regardless of how this turns out, it's really interesting stuff.

 

[twosee]

Take a look at this comparison of the Galaxy S next to an iPhone: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html if the Galaxy S were only as similar to the iPhone as the iPhone is to the Prada, no one would be in court over this. But all you have to do is look at those two next to each other.

Actually.. if you look at the Samsung F700 in that link you sent... it kinda looks like a Prada knock off. Ha!

 

[samcraig]

1. Go with whatever you want.
2. Thanks - I'll post how I want.
3. I'm not hiding. We have different views on the definition of similar - that's obvious. So instead of dedicating countless posts debating it, I've chosen to remove myself from the conversation. Obviously you will (see #1)
4. Go look up what FUD means. There's nothing FUD about calling the original iPhone a feature phone. It does not involve fear, uncertainty or doubt. You can feel free to call it inaccurate or not how you would define it. But FUD is something entirely different. Once upon a time ago - it might have meant what you wanted. But it's not what it means now. Here's a link in case you need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
5. I'm glad we agree it's subjective. So when I say the original email client on the iPhone was terrible and not even very usable for my needs nor most business people's needs, you can accept my opinion as just that - my opinion.

I am going to go with the fact that you can't actually defend what you said without regressing the statement to the point that it is pointless.

Can you please stop replying within the quote of my post? It makes it a pain to reply.

And yet you still refuse to share what exactly you meant. You are just hiding behind vagaries.

Yep. But calling the original iPhone a feature phone is still FUD. I could stretch the definition of personal computer to cover an iPhone. Doesn't mean I should call it that unless I want to intentionally mislead.

Of course, better is subjective. Hence the reason I said "arguably superior." Depends on what is important to you. I consider the fact that it properly formatted HTML emails a huge advance over existing clients. In addition to many other niceties.

 

[bawbac]

Wow, I've been flipping through the pdf, many are just pointing out workflow issues compared to the iphone...no copying at all.

Some other implementations however, from the very wording of the slides, makes it clear that they are trying to position certain aspects of the phone to behave as similarly as possible as to the iphone.

In short, a very mixed bag.

Sheeeeeeee.
You're being logical and will make the natives angry.

 

[aristotle]

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

Objective -
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Even jurors evaluate every piece of evidence as they see it. They are supposed to evaluate the evidence objectively.

Many of those here defending Samsung are being subjective rather than objective. They are making excuses and dismissing clear evidence set before them. Nobody is asking them to interpret anything but rather look at what Samsung themselves wrote in their analysis of their earlier UIs and how the iPhone UI functioned. Most recommendation suggested wholesale copying of the iPhone.

 

[samcraig]

Objective -
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Even jurors evaluate every piece of evidence as they see it. They are supposed to evaluate the evidence objectively....

Or... put another way

Many of those here accusing Samsung are being subjective rather than objective. Nobody is asking them to interpret anything but rather look at what Samsung themselves wrote in their analysis of their earlier UIs and how the iPhone UI functioned.

 

[Renzatic]

Seriously? The PRada phone. That's your argument. This is the kind of argument that people make when they have no argument. In broad strokes, the Prada phone bears minor resemblance to an iPhone. But this is exactly why Samsung should not use this as an example of 'prior art'. The PRada phone's UI is completely different. Notice there's no colors on their launch screen. Note that they put the home bar on the right side. Note how they have a big, wide button on the bottom rather than something with similar dimensions to the iPhone and Galaxy phones. Yes, it's a rectangle with rounded corners. But as a product, it bears no resemblance to an iPhone or a Galaxy phone.

For a bunch of people willing to drill down to the tiniest detail to prove copying, you all sure swing in the opposite direction when it comes to previous phones.

"You see. This phone is nothing like the iPhone. The icons are in black and white, whereas the iOS are in color".

"It's still a grid of icons that launch various apps and features"!

"...they're not similar in the least".

But the fact that iOS and Touchwiz both have a white talk bubble icon for SMS? Hell, that's just flat out stealing.

 

[Mastamarek]

Seriously? The PRada phone. That's your argument. This is the kind of argument that people make when they have no argument. In broad strokes, the Prada phone bears minor resemblance to an iPhone. But this is exactly why Samsung should not use this as an example of 'prior art'. The PRada phone's UI is completely different. Notice there's no colors on their launch screen. Note that they put the home bar on the right side. Note how they have a big, wide button on the bottom rather than something with similar dimensions to the iPhone and Galaxy phones. Yes, it's a rectangle with rounded corners. But as a product, it bears no resemblance to an iPhone or a Galaxy phone.

Take a look at this comparison of the Galaxy S next to an iPhone: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html if the Galaxy S were only as similar to the iPhone as the iPhone is to the Prada, no one would be in court over this. But all you have to do is look at those two next to each other.

If you're silly enough to believe that Samsung independently (and three years later) designed a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone from the front with only minor distinguishing features, you seriously have to be delusional.

And I'll add one more thing... I don't even know if what they did is illegal. It is obviously not an exact copy. But it's close enough that I can be sure that they spent a lot of time duplicating things from the iPhone and not enough time thinking originally, so as a consumer, I think they are limiting my choices by being so similar to something else.

To the legal point though... and I'm admittedly a lay person and only guessing based on having read Samsung's response to Apple's complaint (while on an even more boring and tedious conference call lol) and the way that they present their legal stance... they hang their defense on the idea that in the case of a design patent, an infringing product has to be similar enough that a consumer considering making a purchase must be convinced that it is the same product that they will purchase the infringing product instead of the patented product. Outside of the quotations from legal briefings and such, Samsung's lawyers frame this in such a way as to make it sound like it basically has to be a situation where the infringing product is a knockoff completely masquerading as the other product. Since Apple obviously has pretty good lawyers too, and they brought this case knowing that despite the extreme similarities between the two products, most people doing their due diligence (ignoring that it says Samsung on the box and not iPhone) would realize they are in fact not buying an iPhone, my guess would be that their argument will be that a knowledgeable consumer while they may not purchase a Samsung phone believing that it is an iPhone MAY purchase one believing that it is equivalent in every way, design wise, and therefore pretty much an iPhone that says Samsung on it. Just a guess on my part, though. I would love to be in that court room. Regardless of how this turns out, it's really interesting stuff.

Best reply in the whole thread!! finally someone who has a brain and is not a samsung employee sent here to spread their propaganda

 

[ARandomFellow]

What I stand to gain is a large number of devices in the market offering similar features and function. This brings competition. Allowing one company to corner every specific feature, function, and shape limits the market's ability to offer competing devices and therefore the consumer is actually harmed in the end.

Actually, what you are asking to be allowed is not competition. A large number of devices with similar features and function is stupid. I want a large number of devices with different features and functions so that I can find the one that works best for me, not just pick from a bunch of very similar phones differentiated only by advertising copy.

And to whomever it was that used the car analogy with the 4 wheels... there are still a number of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and even 18 wheeled vehicles out there in the world. 4 isn't necessarily the de facto best. It just happens to be the most popular and maybe the most practical for most purposes. However, no one is arguing wheel count here. Wireless technology is the wheel here. We're talking about the curves of the body and the roofline and the dashboard and taillights. These are all cars. But clearly there is more than one way to design a phone, as many types of phones have existed. And clearly there is more than one way to arrange a UI. Clearly, there is more than one way to design an icon for phone app or a note taking app. Clearly, there is more than one way to make a box for a cell phone to go in. Clearly there is more than one way to make a USB plug to charge your cell phone with. Clearly, there is more than one way to design a generally rectangular shape with rounded corners. Yet strangely, Samsung chose to do all those things in nearly the exact same way as Apple and ended up with a product that looks a lot like an Apple product.

Personally, I wouldn't want to look that much like my competitor. I'd want to make something better.

----------

Best reply in the whole thread!! finally someone who has a brain and is not a samsung employee sent here to spread their propaganda

*takes a bow*

 

[samcraig]

Best reply in the whole thread!! finally someone who has a brain and is not a samsung employee sent here to spread their propaganda

Do you seriously believe anyone here is a Samsung employee - let alone posting on here to spread propaganda? Please tell me you were trying to be funny.

----------

Shhhhhh. That's logic + calling out hypocrisy. I'd hate for you to be deemed a Samsung Employee sent here to cast propaganda!

For a bunch of people willing to drill down to the tiniest detail to prove copying, you all sure swing in the opposite direction when it comes to previous phones.

"You see. This phone is nothing like the iPhone. The icons are in black and white, whereas the iOS are in color".

"It's still a grid of icons that launch various apps and features"!

"...they're not similar in the least".

But the fact that iOS and Touchwiz both have a white talk bubble icon for SMS? Hell, that's just flat out stealing.

 

[dethmaShine]

No insult meant. If you have a physical disability and you want to quote a long post to say "I don't get what you mean by that statement", at least clarify the statement in question if not quoting it. Or just erase some parts of the quote to only leave the statement in question.

Because otherwise, it's quite hard to hold a conversation with you, as we don't actually know how to reply to "I don't get what you mean by that statement" after you've quoted a dozen or so statements.

----------



You do read most of our posts right ? You know, the ones with links to patents, links to court documents, links to articles...

You think we don't read this stuff and we don't use search engines to find them ?

How condescending. "You don't think like me, so you guys are incapable of having independant thought". Sorry, repeating "forum mantra" and falsehoods like some of the "Macrumors is an Apple fan site!" camp does is what shows lack of reading comprehension, lack of understanding of the actual proceedings in Apple v. Samsung and a lack of independant thought by repeating the same stuff that's always repeated here.

You guys sound like broken records sometimes. Hey, how about you post up that picture of Euronics' Samsung kiosk surrounded by Apple icons once more, so we can explain to you again that Euronics is an independant Italian mobile store that also sells Apple products and that the decor is their own ?



Hum, you do understand this is the document we're discussing here right ? We've all read it and see... it doesn't say what you think it says, at least to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be participating in this very thread.

If you go in thinking "Samsung copied Apple... Samsung copied Apple... OH LOOK PROOF!" then sure, that's what you'll read. If on the other hand you just read the document, and not just look at the pretty pictures, you'll notice that it has nothing to do with copying.

I read the entire document and it is absolutely ridiculous. Shameless copying.

You don't notice that because, well everyone knows...

 

[BaldiMac]

1. Go with whatever you want.

And still no clarification of what your actual point.

I'm not hiding. We have different views on the definition of similar - that's obvious. So instead of dedicating countless posts debating it, I've chosen to remove myself from the conversation. Obviously you will (see #1)

Bull. You are hiding behind semantics. You continue to reply to multiple posts questioning your claim and you keep hiding behind the vagueness of your claim.

It's a simple question. What phones, exactly, were you referring to when you said "Phones like the iPhone were already in the market"?

4. Go look up what FUD means. There's nothing FUD about calling the original iPhone a feature phone. It does not involve fear, uncertainty or doubt. You can feel free to call it inaccurate or not how you would define it. But FUD is something entirely different. Once upon a time ago - it might have meant what you wanted. But it's not what it means now. Here's a link in case you need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

I disagree. I think you deciding to call it a feature phone is an attempt to mislead by clouding the significance of the iPhone through uncertainty and doubt.

5. I'm glad we agree it's subjective. So when I say the original email client on the iPhone was terrible and not even very usable for my needs nor most business people's needs, you can accept my opinion as just that - my opinion.

Absolutely.

 

[Renzatic]

Shhhhhh. That's logic + calling out hypocrisy. I'd hate for you to be deemed a Samsung Employee sent here to cast propaganda!

By the way, Bob told me to tell you that your paycheck came in earlier today, and you can go ahead and pick it up at the office anytime.

 

[ARandomFellow]

For a bunch of people willing to drill down to the tiniest detail to prove copying, you all sure swing in the opposite direction when it comes to previous phones.

"You see. This phone is nothing like the iPhone. The icons are in black and white, whereas the iOS are in color".

"It's still a grid of icons that launch various apps and features"!

"...they're not similar in the least".

But the fact that iOS and Touchwiz both have a white talk bubble icon for SMS? Hell, that's just flat out stealing.

Oi vay, mate. I'll point you again to the pictures on this page of the iPhone and the Galaxy S: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

and then to the pictures on this page of the Prada phone: http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2007/4165.htm

Are you really that obtuse, or just trolling?

 

[samcraig]

By the way, Bob told me to tell you that your paycheck came in earlier today, and you can go ahead and pick it up at the office anytime.

I'm too busy to pick it up. You know - because I'm spreading FEAR on here.

----------

And still no clarification of what your actual point.

Bull. You are hiding behind semantics. You continue to reply to multiple posts questioning your claim and you keep hiding behind the vagueness of your claim.

I disagree. I think you deciding to call it a feature phone is an attempt to mislead by clouding the significance of the iPhone through uncertainty and doubt.

See #1 of my previous post. Have a wonderful day BaldiMac.

 

[Renzatic]

I disagree. I think you deciding to call it a feature phone is an attempt to mislead by clouding the significance of the iPhone through uncertainty and doubt.

And what exactly was the significance of the first iPhone? How was it a vastly different and unprecedented device?

To me, it was a very well done smartphone. It looked great, had a smooth, responsive UI, and was one of the first phones you could actually browse the internet on it halfway decently. But it still didn't do more than any other phone that came before it.

Polish and shine are not revolutionary features.

 

[ARandomFellow]

first off if you would rather a product that you think was innovative over the copy that is better then really thats rather silly. buy the best product for the product not for the company that made it. also if you think apple doesnt make products like other products again very wrong. everything apple makes is an existing product with a slightly new spin on it. they invented very little

I know it's rather silly to want to reward a company that innovates. Because in the short term, allowing someone else to steal that innovation and maybe add a feature or two that makes it slightly better gives me a better product. But when that other company then decides its not worth it to invest in making the next innovation because it'll just be stolen anyway, I lose out in the long term.

Short term thinking is why we get into an awful lot of trouble in the world.

 

[Geckotek]

Seriously? The PRada phone. That's your argument.

It's not an argument, it's a specific answer to a specific question posed by you.

 

[slattery69]

Objective -
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Even jurors evaluate every piece of evidence as they see it. They are supposed to evaluate the evidence objectively.

Many of those here defending Samsung are being subjective rather than objective. They are making excuses and dismissing clear evidence set before them. Nobody is asking them to interpret anything but rather look at what Samsung themselves wrote in their analysis of their earlier UIs and how the iPhone UI functioned. Most recommendation suggested wholesale copying of the iPhone.

and that is exactly what im doing looking at ALL the evidence not just one piece. Im not a fan of either apple or samsung and therefore have no personal feelings on either there both just multinational companies to me.
Yes jurors do evaluate but unlike you dont get to make a decision till they've heard and seen all the evidence
can you say the same that your not a fan of either company and haven't let personal feelings get in the way