Susan Kare, Greg Joswiak to Testify in Upcoming Apple v. Samsung Damages Retrial

[OlliFlamme]

N

Boy, looking back at photos today, I miss the pre-iOS 7 design. I might be in the minority in that regard.

Nope! I love it too. It’s sturdy, classy, top notch! I would love a remake of those with a modern ios on!
[doublepost=1524574361][/doublepost]

Moses Farmer invented the light bulb and dynamo. Edison improved on the design. A hundred years from now will anyone remember the name Jobs?

I am pretty sure of that! In the same breath as Bill Gates however.

 

[stockscalper]

Little Timmy is like a dog with a bone; he just doesn't know when to let go. Apple has stolen plenty from other platforms. Let's face it, in this industry everybody steals. Timmy continues to buy components from Samsung, who is charging Apple more than they otherwise would in order to recover lawsuit costs.

 

[ahireasu]

Companies like Samsung can get away with blatantly copying the style, layout, and underlying principal of a profitable device like the iPhone because courts have absolutely no power in righting this wrong. Even if Apple wins, they'll get pennies on the dollar compared to real damages. The market favors theft of intellectual property.

Said what? said the pot calling the kettle black
That's one of the biggest oxymorons, Apple the biggest thief and copier sues others for copying...And before you go all terminator to me remember Steve Jobs said it.

 

[Blackstick]

Love how they're litigating ancient technology people haven't used in years.

 

[ChrisCW11]

After all these years, I still think you have to be an idiot to mistake the iPhone for the Samsung. Sure they look similar, but the complaint Apple always had was that consumers couldn't tell the difference, and that just speaks of how little respect Aple has for their customers.
[doublepost=1524580765][/doublepost]

Apple, don't you know it's not nice to kick a dog when they're down?

You've already decimated Samsung in the market, so you've won far more than what you'd get from this trial.

Define decimate? iPhone is like 60% Samsung parts. Also Samsung still sells more phones then Apple does, just Apple makes more profit margin, largely from getting discounted Samsung parts.

 

[mariusignorello]

Unlike everything you probably believe, Apple is NOT the mother of all invention. Most of Apple's designs are also just copies of previous works or things you see every day without even noticing them anymore. Rounded corners? Look at any street sign that you find. There is a well documented conversation between Steve Jobs and Andy Hertzfeld where Jobs EXPLICITLY states the fact that rounded corners are everywhere, and that the Mac should also use rounded boxes.

Sir Yve based most of his famous designs on the work of Dieter Rams, that's another well known fact.

And touch interfaces also had been around for years - even decades - when the iPhone was released. Every bar or bowling alley on the planet had been using them in their POS systems.

Slide to unlock? Have you EVER opened a barn door? Or went to visit a medieval castle? There was absolutely nothing innovative about that patent. I rather wonder what moron even granted that patent to Apple; that person would probably also have given them a patent for the English language or the design of the Sixtene Chapel.

On a related note, I wonder if Apple ever paid a penny to the team that wrote the original file search app that Apple later blatantly SHERLOCKed...

This whole Apple vs Samsung case is the perfect example why the existing global patent system should be completely abolished.

Started off with an insult? Automatically ignored. Goodbye.

 

[conceptvbs123]

This is why I stopped buying ANY SamSung products years ago. Just like I stopped going to Starbucks years ago. Both slimey but for different reasons. Apple 2018!!!

When you buy Apple products, you also buy Samsung products.

 

[prasand]

Personally I think that Apple is in the wrong on this one; it's hypocritical to say that Apple doesn't owe Qualcomm a percentage of the full value of the device, but then turn around and say that Samsung owes Apple that.

But judgments of "right" and "wrong" are never absolute, and always debatable, which is what Apple intends to do. If Apple manages to prove themselves right on two opposite stances, Apple's legal team should dab or do the running man on their way out of the courtroom.

 

[cmwade77]

Here is Samsung's simple response: Show a picture of the iPhone X next to a Samsung Galaxy S8 or Note 8, really Apple copied a lot from Samsung, so much so that Samsung should easily be able to sue Apple.

 

[jimbobb24]

They clearly copied. But let it go....

 

[prasand]

Here is Samsung's simple response: Show a picture of the iPhone X next to a Samsung Galaxy S8 or Note 8, really Apple copied a lot from Samsung, so much so that Samsung should easily be able to sue Apple.

As one of Apple's suppliers, Samsung is afforded insight on things that the public is not. Regardless, every year Samsung strives to anticipate Apple's next innovations. In my opinion, they end up doing a half-job much of the time; so they are able to release to market faster. It gives Samsung fanboys a false perception, that just because Samsung came to market first, it was their idea. When that's not actually true. This isn't to say that Apple hasn't gotten "any" ideas from Samsung, it's just saying that many of the things Samsung "released first" were actually Apple's ideas.

It's part of the flow of the market. Undoubtedly, every year companies seek to find out what Apple's doing, to anticipate the market and get ahead of the curve. However, Apple's stolen ideas are more reactionary than preemptive.

 

[kdarling]

how is that similar at all?? Qualcomm's business model is to license their stuff out, they just wanted MORE from Apple than other vendors cause Apple has more money. Apple never licensed the design out to Samsung

Nope, Qualcomm did NOT ask more from Apple. In fact, Apple doesn't even have a Qualcomm license. Instead, they rode on the back of factories like Foxconn who DO have Qualcomm licenses. And their rates did not change just because they started building iPhones as well as other phones.

Samsung could have just paid the fine. Instead, they keep appealing. Why does Samsung keep pushing the case?

Because ...

The case in question is about how to calculate damages, not if Samsung copied Apple.

Correct. It started with a Supreme Court case supported by many companies, because a hundred year old rule, created to help out a carpet maker, still allows design patent owners to reap the entire profits of a product.

Back when products only contained one or two design patents, that perhaps made sense. Nowadays, with smartphones using literally a hundred thousand patented ideas, it no longer makes sense.

Thus the Supreme Court sent the case back down so that a new trial could decide exactly how much each design patent contributed towards each whole device.

--

Note: it could still turn out to be 100% if the jury wants. Although such a verdict would be highly questionable. And undesirable.

Imagine if someone proved that Apple had used their, oh let's say famous railroad clockface, in an icon. Should they then get 100% of Apple's iPhone profits? Just because it's a design patent instead of a utility patent?

Worse, the law allows this to happen for EACH design patent. So theoretically multiple patent holders can EACH ask for the ENTIRE profits. Ridiculous.

Little Timmy is like a dog with a bone; he just doesn't know when to let go. Apple has stolen plenty from other platforms. Let's face it, in this industry everybody steals. Timmy continues to buy components from Samsung, who is charging Apple more than they otherwise would in order to recover lawsuit costs.

Actually, Tim Cook dropped all the lawsuits against Samsung except those still ongoing like this one in the US. He was clearly frustrated at how much effort was being spent with so little return.

 

[gnasher729]

It keeps going because Apple is two faced. They want Samsung to pay a percentage of the total cost of the Galaxy phone for copying the rectangle shape of the phone. That includes all the tech inside it too that Samsung didn't copy.

That's because it is not a utility patent, but a design patent. By copying Apple's design patent without permission, Samsung made people believe that their phones were Apple phones (quite reasonably if you compare the pictures), and whenever someone bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone, Apple lost the sale of one complete phone.

Apple's argument isn't "you stole our technology", Apple's argument is "by stealing our designs, you stole our customers".
[doublepost=1524591012][/doublepost]

You really seriously believe that no one would buy a phone that doesn't look like an iPhone, when about 90% of the world buys phones today that look nothing like an iPhone, and did so at the time it was released?

90% of the phones are not in court, just the ten percent that stole Apple's design patents, and looked amazingly similar to an iPhone.
[doublepost=1524591192][/doublepost]

This is getting old Apple. You weren't first with the look and implementation of the iPhone and nearly 10 years later you have the absolute nerve to continue to push this case.

It's easy to lie, but Apple _did_ have the first phone looking like an iPhone, and they _did_ have the implementation first (quote from a BlackBerry person quite high up: "They put a f***ing computer in the phone").

 

[Arty6]

It keeps going because Apple is two faced. They want Samsung to pay a percentage of the total cost of the Galaxy phone for copying the rectangle shape of the phone. That includes all the tech inside it too that Samsung didn't copy.

Mean while in the other court room with Apple and Qualcomm, Apple is saying they shouldn't have to pay a percentage of the total cost of the iPhone for using Qualcomm modem tech.

What? look at it, it's more than just the rectangle shape of the phone.

 

[deanthedev]

Define decimate? iPhone is like 60% Samsung parts. Also Samsung still sells more phones then Apple does, just Apple makes more profit margin, largely from getting discounted Samsung parts.

Decimate as in selling 3-4X as many flagships. Of course Samsung sells more phones - but most of those are low-end junk phones, a market Apple doesn’t compete in.

60%? I think you need to watch some recent tear downs of iPhones. Most of the iPhone components are NOT from Samsung. The X had the OLED screen, but even that’s a far cry from 60%.

Discounted Samsung parts? Are you suggesting Apple pays less than Samsung themselves for their own phones?
[doublepost=1524593331][/doublepost]

Here is Samsung's simple response: Show a picture of the iPhone X next to a Samsung Galaxy S8 or Note 8, really Apple copied a lot from Samsung, so much so that Samsung should easily be able to sue Apple.

Show us the design patents Samsung has and identify which claims from those that the iPhone X infringes. I’ll be right here waiting....

 

[shplock]

It keeps going because Apple is two faced. They want Samsung to pay a percentage of the total cost of the Galaxy phone for copying the rectangle shape of the phone. That includes all the tech inside it too that Samsung didn't copy.

Mean while in the other court room with Apple and Qualcomm, Apple is saying they shouldn't have to pay a percentage of the total cost of the iPhone for using Qualcomm modem tech.

I am sure that Apple is or at leats can be two faced. However in this case it could be a case of needing to send Samsung a powerful message to stop copying. Samsung have copied a lot of companies and it seems that the only skill any Samsung manager has is being able to use a photocopier and slap tech other on the back about how good a job they are all doing.(That by the way is what happened regrind the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco). At least when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1996/1997 he sat down with engineers and went through every apple product telling them what was wrong with them.
[doublepost=1524594797][/doublepost]

Companies like Samsung can get away with blatantly copying the style, layout, and underlying principal of a profitable device like the iPhone because courts have absolutely no power in righting this wrong. Even if Apple wins, they'll get pennies on the dollar compared to real damages. The market favors theft of intellectual property.

You have a point, however I will say that some courts(depends on the country)can impose huge limitless fines. here in the UK the courts can impose in some cases record fines and they have done so. I am not sure if that is the case in the US.
I do say that perhaps Samsung should be targeted by consumers over their blatant history of copying other tech forms ideas and designs. I think the targeting should be in the form of legal tactics such as protesting peacefully at Samsung shops(do they have any??), or any place that would hurt Samsung financially.
here in the UK some years ago a company called Boots (sells cosmetics etc)were apparently testing products on animals. So animal rights protesters turned up and sat down outside a main boots store and stopped customers entering. They offered no resistance to the customers and were not aggressive nor violent. At the time there was a law that said they were allowed to stay there for an hour before having to move if asked.
When an hour passed that were asked by the police to move so they did and then another group sat down and did the same tactic as there friends did. This kept on for about 2 days. So perhaps the only way to punish Samsung is to hurt them some legal way that forces them to address their culture.
I see this as a black and white issue where justice needs to be delivered and needs to be harsh. Then again I am Autistic so what would anyone expect.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

Ugh, all this unresolved sexual tension is terrible. When are these two going to realize they're helplessly drawn to each other and just kiss?!

View attachment 759468

LMAO. AngerDanger, I just can't with you anymore...

 

[mudflap]

It keeps going because Apple is two faced. They want Samsung to pay a percentage of the total cost of the Galaxy phone for copying the rectangle shape of the phone. That includes all the tech inside it too that Samsung didn't copy.

Mean while in the other court room with Apple and Qualcomm, Apple is saying they shouldn't have to pay a percentage of the total cost of the iPhone for using Qualcomm modem tech.

Apples to oranges.

 

[mi7chy]

The picture comparison in the first post is misleading. You have to be blind to mistake one for the other since they're noticeably different in phone and screen size beside other obvious things.

This is the real size comparison.

And, they both evolved from products long before like the 2003 Compaq iPaq h2210 Pocket PC rectangle with rounded corners, circular home button, WIFI and even calling capability. Noticed how Apple even borrowed similarity in the name.

 

[tito2020]

Well apple is no1 company like they said so they created this mess

 

[ackmondual]

Companies like Samsung can get away with blatantly copying the style, layout, and underlying principal of a profitable device like the iPhone because courts have absolutely no power in righting this wrong. Even if Apple wins, they'll get pennies on the dollar compared to real damages. The market favors theft of intellectual property.

Well, you know what they say...
Good companies copy
Great companies steal

 

[tooltalk]

It keeps going because Apple is two faced. They want Samsung to pay a percentage of the total cost of the Galaxy phone for copying the rectangle shape of the phone. That includes all the tech inside it too that Samsung didn't copy.

Mean while in the other court room with Apple and Qualcomm, Apple is saying they shouldn't have to pay a percentage of the total cost of the iPhone for using Qualcomm modem tech.

Well, a few minor correction: Apple wanted to collect Samsung's ENTIRE PROFIT for "stealing" Apple's patented "rounded corners." The SCOTUS unlike the lower court shills saw through Apple's garbage and unanimously kicked the case back to the district court.
[doublepost=1524608696][/doublepost]

Apples to oranges.

How so? Apple has been consistently hypocritical and argued for the smallest saleable patent practicing units doctrine to be applied in lawsuits where Apple is the defendant/infringers -- yes, that includes SEPs (Qualcomm) as well as non-SEPs (VirnetX) -- while asking the maximum (eg, entire profit in Samsung's case) when they are the plaintiff.

 

[kdarling]

That's because it is not a utility patent, but a design patent. By copying Apple's design patent without permission, Samsung made people believe that their phones were Apple phones (quite reasonably if you compare the pictures), and whenever someone bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone, Apple lost the sale of one complete phone.

At the very least, the big "SAMSUNG" across the front is a clue

People didn't buy a Samsung phone while actually thinking it was an iPhone, all on their own.

That's because nobody is able to buy phones off the shelf by picking up the "wrong" box. No sir. You have to ASK for the item BY NAME. In other words, if you say "I want that iPhone" then that's what you get in a box from a locked cabinet. To get a Samsung instead, you have to ask for a Samsung.

So, anyone who bought a Samsung "thinking it was an iPhone" did so only because some salesperson told them that it was just as good, only less expensive or something like that... not because the box or phone looked similar.

first (quote from a BlackBerry person quite high up: "They put a f***ing computer in the phone").

That's a nonsense quote, since Blackberrys ran Java. They already were little computers with apps. Including third party apps, something the first iPhone sorely lacked. It was pretty much what we called a "feature phone" back then, because it was locked into whatever apps Apple installed.

The picture comparison in the first post is misleading. You have to be blind to mistake one for the other since they're noticeably different in phone and screen size beside other obvious things.

The biggest reason why the picture that fansites often use is misleading (besides the size), is the fact that the homescreens were very different:

Instead of showing a homescreen, people claiming they're lookalikes always show an Android App Drawer... which is rarely seen even by users, much less by early buyers out to get a smartphone.

 

[jamezr]

You can say all the tech inside doesn't mean the entire device was copied but search what Samsung phones looked like before the iPhone was released and then after... They blatantly copied everything they could. They knew the tech Apple put inside (weren't they suppliers back then as well?)

The difference in a full touch screen device and the old candybar phones would be huge. Android changed all the software too. Samsung deliberately chose the look and feel to be as similar as possible with their UI skin. And if that wasn't enough, they could have chosen any number of screen layouts but they even went as far as the rounded app buttons in the same grid. If you stood a few feet back, it would be hard for regular people to tell the difference.

The only ones getting rich out of this are the lawyers. It should have been settled years ago.

Samsung is probably worried if they lose (again) other companies they have copied are finally going to have a shot at them too for white goods they were "inspired" by.

Maybe patent law needs to be simplified. So much relies on previous work now it must be hard not to infringe and patent trolls think they can make money without ever building a product. What defines a product is the whole hardware, software, UI, OS, app store and overall feel. Breaking down what percentage each bit contributes is difficult. The sum of the parts...

Jobs famously said they'd patented the hell out of this. They maybe should have tested those patents earlier.

I agree with -BigMac-: even Apple probably doesn't care for this lawsuit now. When you see how much of the market profit Apple captures does it really matter any more?

The whole suit should have been thrown out to begin with......How can you copy a rectangular shape? Then how would anyone confuse it for an iphone with Samsung pasted across the front?

Apple got a home country verdict the first time around. If this same suit was brought today.....it would be laughed out of court.
[doublepost=1524630660][/doublepost]

At the very least, the big "SAMSUNG" across the front is a clue

People didn't buy a Samsung phone while actually thinking it was an iPhone, all on their own.

That's because nobody is able to buy phones off the shelf by picking up the "wrong" box. No sir. You have to ASK for the item BY NAME. In other words, if you say "I want that iPhone" then that's what you get in a box from a locked cabinet. To get a Samsung instead, you have to ask for a Samsung.

So, anyone who bought a Samsung "thinking it was an iPhone" did so only because some salesperson told them that it was just as good, only less expensive or something like that... not because the box or phone looked similar.

View attachment 759576

Instead of showing a homescreen, people claiming they're lookalikes always show an Android App Drawer... which is rarely seen even by users, much less by early buyers out to get a smartphone.

If this suit were brought today it would be thrown out of court.

 

[iamshine]

The trial of the decade...

trial that lasts a decade ...and more