Thats not the point. The point was that they were trying to take ideas from the iPone's user interface. Should that be an infringement? I don't think so. Apple used Android's idea from the notification center. But then again, the court system is a twisted place where anything is possible.
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
Thats not the point. The point was that they were trying to take ideas from the iPone's user interface. Should that be an infringement? I don't think so. Apple used Android's idea from the notification center. But then again, the court system is a twisted place where anything is possible.
I'm not arguing, but I've never heard this before. Can you fill me in or give me a source?
Growl had no pulldown "notification center". This is what Google is in the process of patenting and what people claim was "lifted". If anything, Growl is like the previous, shoddy notifications iOS had, only less intrusive.
I can see how you lost your glory of RIM, and hope you enjoy the samsu** Blackjack (oops I mean Blackberry).
Huh? Some interesting reaching going on here.
Not only is that irrelevant in a trade dress case (only a likelihood of confusion is necessary), but you have Samsung saying their pre-iPhone phones are like "Earth" compared to iPhone "Heaven" and they've been completely caught off guard in a "crisis of design". Then you have a bunch of Samsung phones that look confusingly similar to the iPhone. Then you have a document directly pulling design tips from the iPhone while saying they should be modified a little so it's not as direct a copy.
It's easy to see why Apple's chosen to pursue this case as long as it has.
^^THIS^^
And interesting that the judge threw out Samsung's prior art. I don't understand that at all. It really makes the judge seem like he's already made up his mind and will do what it takes to rule against Samsung.
OK, Samsung and others did copy heavily from the iPhone. They're not exactly earning a lot of respect from me. But what they copied is just abstract ideas... like rectangles... not specific implementations of ideas.
"i-Phone". Heh. You'd think a bunch of developers would know not to spell it like a 60 year old man who can barely figure out his Jitterbug.
"i-Phone". Heh. You'd think a bunch of developers would know not to spell it like a 60 year old man who can barely figure out his Jitterbug.
Perhaps everyone does do it. From a legal point of view I have no clue what I'm talking about BUT, as a layman, looking through that document, it's so abundantly clear that Samsung have focused on ONE competitor and tried to make their phone more like it as much as they possibly can.
That's the bit that isn't cool. If there were a hindered other docs where they've drawn inspiration from other sources it would still be bloody obvious where they've drawn their biggest influence from.
They copied Apple and now Apple are pissed off, so we've got handbags at dawn.
I think some of us are just trying to temper some of the crazy things people are saying here. People forget that Apple is MUCH better due to Samsung being in their market.
Group Polarization
Notification Center was originally developed by Palm (Notification System for WebOS) by Rich Dellinger, not Android. The concept was not patented.
Rich Dellinger is now working for Apple. So one could say Apple bought the Notification Center.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ements_coming_to_ios_notification_center.html
It's not the proof that but how!
This evidence does not show that Samsung copied the iPhone. Granted. However, it shows something else: The methodology on how they went about it.
The infringement part are the icons being close copies, design, etc. I'm not gonna go into detail there. It's stated and posted over and over.
Now, Apple has to establish why and how Samsung copied and this is the smoking gun for that. Samsung documents showing the iOS with direct comparison before a design change towards iOS is pretty convincing to me.
Also, there are alternatives Samsung did not use: Leave Android generic, use other contrasts, shapes, and colors. It might be that Apple used the most intuitive color schemes for certain things like green for call and red for hanging up. Piont being, Samsung copied things to a detail that even if you don't have a patent, it could be almost a copyright infringement. If I use a sythesizer making me sound like Brittney Spears and sing "Hit me baby one more time" as close as possible the same way and try to sell the records, I'm pretty sure, I will hear from her lawyers even if I got the rights to sing the song etc. If I make a rock version, not so much. What I try to illustrate here is that you can do something right without blatant copy. Now, Bell and Reis both invented the phone independently. Both didn't know of each other and both didn't claim the other one copied. That would have been different if one would have had documents comparing the other one's design to the own one, don't you think?
This evidence does not show that Samsung copied the iPhone. Granted. However, it shows something else: The methodology on how they went about it.
The infringement part are the icons being close copies, design, etc. I'm not gonna go into detail there. It's stated and posted over and over.
Now, Apple has to establish why and how Samsung copied and this is the smoking gun for that. Samsung documents showing the iOS with direct comparison before a design change towards iOS is pretty convincing to me.
Also, there are alternatives Samsung did not use: Leave Android generic, use other contrasts, shapes, and colors. It might be that Apple used the most intuitive color schemes for certain things like green for call and red for hanging up. Piont being, Samsung copied things to a detail that even if you don't have a patent, it could be almost a copyright infringement. If I use a sythesizer making me sound like Brittney Spears and sing "Hit me baby one more time" as close as possible the same way and try to sell the records, I'm pretty sure, I will hear from her lawyers even if I got the rights to sing the song etc. If I make a rock version, not so much. What I try to illustrate here is that you can do something right without blatant copy. Now, Bell and Reis both invented the phone independently. Both didn't know of each other and both didn't claim the other one copied. That would have been different if one would have had documents comparing the other one's design to the own one, don't you think?
Last edited:
This proves nothing except that Samsung's UI designers needed some 101 lessons. Powerpoint presentations are always assembled using obvious reference models.
Not putting a small critical button next to safe buttons? That's not something the iPhone invented. It's something hardware designers should be aware of as soon as they start their job.
Next thing in evidence, making a "safe" button green and a "bad" button red just like it is on the iPhone.
Not putting a small critical button next to safe buttons? That's not something the iPhone invented. It's something hardware designers should be aware of as soon as they start their job.
Next thing in evidence, making a "safe" button green and a "bad" button red just like it is on the iPhone.
I think the underlying this is most of the stealing comes from everyone stealing from Apple as they hold the patents, it is not to say they might not have copied some others, but it depends on where the patents reside, and how much they copied. Looking at this stuff, Samsung cloned their phones to look like the iPhone, more then just a patent issue.
So when apple made the iPhone, they made it in a vacuum right? Then didn't pull up a windows phone or a blackberry or nokia and say "Gee here is the current market leaders smartphones, what can we do to improve upon it?"
Apple did EXACTLY as you described. They found ways to IMPROVE their iPhone with NEW DESIGNS that are DIFFERENT from the competitors.
Samsung, however, COPIED competitors designs when theirs were lacking.
How can anyone be on Samsung's side? Must be a lot of paid-off Samsung fanboys.
Why bigger? The problem is samsung's original design had users accidentally pressing the wrong buttons when hanging up. Solution: Copy iPhone, make the button bigger and move it to the bottom. And now you are saying well, how else can you make the button bigger and move it to the bottom without copying iPhone. Avoid thinking that iPhone has the only answer.
Think outside the box, the solution doesn't have to be exactly what apple did. How about slide screen down to hang up? Or have a picture of the person you are talking on the screen and swipe their face away to hang up. If you have multiple calls, just swipe away the one you you want to hang up on. That's innovation.
Showing a picture of the iPhone end button and then saying "we need to make the button bigger and move it down so it's not connected to other buttons" IS describing what Apple did and IS a complete copy cat. Then you saying, well how else can it be done, other than the way apple did it, doesn't excuse copying.
I don't know enough about the pull down notifications to debate that point. I am simply discussing the notifications that show on the screen while you are working on something else, or watching a video.
The old iOS notifications were modal, the new system, like Growl notifies you of what is happening without stopping you form working. In the past, or if you have the old system enabled, it stops you dead in your tracks until you acknowledge them.
Android devices had this correct (for the most part) at the beginning, but I personally don't credit Google, or Android developers for that innovation, it was done before, and done well on desktop OS's, or website development beforehand.
Companies have always responded to competitors with a me too product this is just a photocopy machine doing the designing for Samsung. User interface rip off combined with hardware rip-off spells rip-off.