Samsung: 'Apple's proto-iPhone Jony is a Sony phone phoney' Samsung is pulling out all the stops in its patent battle with Apple. The latest allegation, which emerged in a court filing submitted yesterday, is that Apple based its iPhone 4 design on some early sketches that appear to borrow from a Sony design. The South Korean firm presented prototype Apple CAD drawings [PDF] which even …
I personally like page 5... The original Samsung iPhone.
This whole saga really is a bit sad and repetitive. There's really nothing new or innovative about rounding off the corners of an icon. That's nothing more than basic ergonomics as seen on scrabble tiles.
As for the phone design, there are only so many shapes which can be held in the hand, fit in the pocket and line up with ear and mouth.
>less like an F700 and more like an iPhone why would you be surprised if Apple sued them?
you missed the point on this, and that is that Apple seemingly copied the F700 design with the i-phone., and not the other way round. if you looks at the front of the f700 and i-phone, theyre nears as darn it identicle, and.... the f700 was first.
no i didnt miis the point, you, like many other s(and apples lawyers) chose to ignore it,
one of apples main patent claims is the look of the i-phone with the rectangular layout, rounded corners and a single button..
tadah!!!! it was on other phone designs before the iphone (the sliding keyboard, or not, is irrelevant)
This post has been deleted by its author
To quote Steve Todd "And you missed the point that the F700 had a sliding keyboard, so no, it wasn't much like an iPhone"
And yet crApple initially cited the F700 in their "indiscriminant copying allegations". Another case of selective fanboi memory disorder.
FYI. Samsung filed its design patent for the F700 in Dec 2006 in South Korea
Actually I think the iPhone looks like a slimmed down (i.e. keyboard less) F700...
Now if Samsung were to release a new phone with a sliding keyboard like the F700, but with the dimensions of the SGS3, I would be interested!
So Surely Samsung should sue Apple for copying their design?
I had never seen the F700, but from looking at it, HOW has apple won ANY design patent arguments?
You could argue that rounding off the corners is necessary to avoid causing damage to pockets. That leads to an argument that rounded corners on the shell are a functional requirement and hence not eligible for patent.
Not sure it would get far with legal pro's but might well work on a jury.
TBH I foresee Apple leaving court with less patents than they entered with and a very large bill for Samsungs lost sales.
That this will ultimately cause Apple to back off a bit on the bullshit. But I also dont believe it will do that. Only time will tell sadly and hopefully the patent offices around the world (not singling out the USPTO here) will get their collective heads out of their asses and stop awarding design patents. Doubt that will happen either though.
It tells us (non-fanbois) nothing we didn't know about how apple operates.
Perhaps any fanboys who have previous commented that Samsung should 'design their own stuff and not copy apple" would like to retract a few criticisms....thought not.
Apple - the company who wants to own the copyright on cutting corners (in their design process, that is). Lol
I did notice in that document...
"Samsung also manufactures Apple‘s A5X processor and is the sole supplier of the Retina display used in the new iPad"
So it's pretty much the Samsung Pad, anyway. Do you think engineers get reference code from 'the manufacturer' with those displays like maybe how to implement multi-touch, etc ?
Unless they did the pre-retina displays too then they had multi-touch before making Apple's screens. But fanboys who read the document will have found that multi-touch was in use before Apple invented it. So Samsung probably had no difficulty in implementing their own multi-touch system without reference to Apple, as did others.
"Samsung also manufactures Apple‘s A5X processor and is the sole supplier of the Retina display used in the new iPad"
So it's pretty much the Samsung Pad, anyway. Do you think engineers get reference code from 'the manufacturer' with those displays like maybe how to implement multi-touch, etc ?
----
I guess you are not aware that LCDs and touchscreens are manufactured separately and layered one over the other in all touch screen devices sold today. Apple is rumored to be getting their next iPhone's screens from Sharp, which will have the touch matrix integrated into the LCD, which would make it slightly thinner as well as reduce assembly costs. It sounds like this is some tech that Apple developed jointly with Sharp (likely tech Apple got from one of the small companies they buy from time to time)
So no, just because Samsung manufactures the CPU Apple designed and supplies the LCD screen doesn't mean that Samsung has anything to do with Apple's multitouch. Apple got that tech when they bought Fingerworks 2005, which was the company that originally developed the multitouch technology.
>So no, just because Samsung manufactures the CPU Apple designed and supplies the LCD screen doesn't mean that Samsung has anything to do with Apple's multitouch. Apple got that tech when they bought Fingerworks 2005
Just as they got the CPU design team by buying PA Semi - nothing wrong with acquiring your innovation on the open market, but it flies in the face of Apple's continuing to paint itself as an invention hot house.
...choice of Samsung as A5 fabricator is mainly down to the plant that knocks them out being in Texas, really nothing to do with the spat. So much of Apple's kit is produced outside the US, they're unlikely to wipe out a few hundred US jobs by moving this elsewhere whatever happens
Just as they got the CPU design team by buying PA Semi - nothing wrong with acquiring your innovation on the open market, but it flies in the face of Apple's continuing to paint itself as an invention hot house.
----
It all comes down to what a company sees as their core competencies. Apple sees themselves as doing great products that work well through seamless melding of hardware and software. They don't need to build their own chip design capability from the ground up to do this, so they bought that capability. They also do acquisitions for companies they think will be useful in the future. Presumably that's why they bought Fingerworks. They saw what they were working on and bought them to bring that capability in house for future products that were in the concept stage.
If Apple just stole everything like the haters claim, they wouldn't have bought Fingerworks, they would have just copied what they did. If they were just buying a bunch of components from Samsung and having Foxconn slap them together like the ignorant claim, they wouldn't have bought PASemi.
So Androids rectangular products look nothing like Apple's but you feel Apple's is so close to the Sony design that it's theft?
Awesome Fandroid logic.
It of course ignores the fact one is glass and one is metal, one has one face button and one has 3 face buttons, one as buttons (or something) significantly sticking out the side and one doesn't.
But it's not like Google didn't tell Samsung their designs are too similar to the ipad as well as Samsung's own product design group.
" So Androids rectangular products look nothing like Apple's but you feel Apple's is so close to the Sony design that it's theft?"
Slight misrepresentation there. I think the missing term would be "by Apple's logic". It's more of a hoist-by-one's-own-petard deal.
There are a few interesting points made in that document... the image of the phone designs / mockups and the final designs - with the iPhone in the middle, the points about the complaint being a small part of a large design and the "ordinary person" case.
It must be a Friday to have read that... :)
I don't see what's so damning of Apple, it's not like they got hold of a Sony prototype sketch and copied it, one of Apple's designers was simply sketching ideas and asked himself "what would I design if I was working for sony?".
Personally I think these companies should stop wasting energy suing each other and just make great products, there are hardly any 100% original ideas anymore, just improvements.
The allegation is that Apple *had sight* of some Sony designs, and decided that there were several aspects of them that were superior to the current Apple designs, and that the course of the Apple design project was *changed* to incorporate those aspects of the designs. Hence prior art/copying. From the evidence presented in the document, it does look like they might have a case.
Having had a brief trawl it looks like Sammie are just saying, this shows we did't copy X, and even if you're not convinced by that, this shows prior art, and, finally, if all else fails, this shows how Apple have misapplied the patent in the first place....
So their lawyers are just doing the usual in throwing everything in case something will stick. Frankly, I'd just rather Apple and Samsung were told to get over it and let the world move on.
Don't forget that the designer of the original Sony Playstation was proud to say it is a homage to the Apple Mac (which was designed for Apple by Frog Design). His thoughts were "What would a games console look like if it were designed for Apple?", and he deliberately and openly insisted on horizonatal lines in the case.
It seems strange that Sony started the 21st centuary on the back foot- they had many MP3 player concepts and UIs- not to mention myriad Walkmen models- long before the iPod. They made so many different walkmen models that to produce a pocket-sized electronic device that doesn't look like a prior Sony device seems almost impossible. Like the characters in South Park spending all episode saying "Simpson's done it"
Tearing down your competitors models is such common practice that companies will usually send each other examples of their latest production models (along with an invoice) as a matter of course.
This post has been deleted by its author
No, Sammie are saying:
1. We had our designs before Apple released the IPhone and they were not materially changed by the IPhone
2. Apples original phone looked much different to the released version because Apple got sight of Sony designs and copied aspects of them (and the pictures do look urrrrm interesting)
3. Apples claim to originality is based at least in part on those aspects of the Sony design that they copied
4. Apples claim that Sammie *must* be guilty of copying because they do tear-downs of the competition is rubbish, because Apple do the same thing
Which really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, because we're long past the point where anyone can claim genuine originality in this field. I wish both sides would grow up.
That said, I was reading that the publishers of Minecraft are being accused of patent infringement (by a troll?) because they use a server to perform license checks (among other things)....
To be fair Sammie wouldn't be filing this stuff with court if Fapple hadn't decided to spit their dummy out in the first place.
If they've paid nothing to Sammie for use of patents then they're surely in the wrong regardless and the question is merely how much.
I am beginning to get the sense that some of these 'thieves' of IP are actually paying out the rope with the small defeats so they can whip up a nice big arse-kicking down the line, allowing Fapple to paint themselves into a corner of their own making.
Oh no doubt it's a solid case... For Apple.
* In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
* In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.
* As part of a formal, Samsung-sponsored evaluation, famous designers warned Samsung that the Galaxy S “looked like it copied the iPhone too much,” and that “innovation is needed.” The designers explained that the appearance of the Galaxy S “[c]losely resembles the iPhone shape so as to have no distinguishable elements,” and “[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it’s difficult to find anything different from the iPhone.”
No, none of that is evidence of a solid case, and had you bothered to read much, you would have learned:
a) Design patents cover ornamental stuff, and to violate one it is necessary to prove that the alleged infringing design was deliberately created to deceive a well informed consumer. So, for example, sticking the word "SAMSUNG" on the front of an object make it REALLY hard to claim that someone would have thought that, despite saying SAMSUNG on the front, an object was actually an Apple. NOTE: pretending that if you covered up the bits that making it obvious that a SAMSUNG is not an Apple proves that the designs are copies results in the ludicrous situation of claiming that every single mobile phone is a copy of the very first one (except for the bits which are not, doh!).
b) I think only a idiot would assert that Google are a definitive source of legal analysis. Typically we use "courts" for that role. Still, sticking a honking great SAMSUNG on the front satisfies any rational requirement, plus the OBVIOUS fact that the Galaxy Tab is obviously thinner than the pudgy iPad. Apparently most people reading this STILL believe that the objective standard is "if you stand back and squint at a picture of the devices, if they kinda look similar than obviously one is copy of the other", despite the fact that the legal test is whether someone who KNEW THE MARKET would mistake one for the other at the point of purchase.
c) I think multi-million dollar lawsuits from the Derivative Thugs in Cupertino are justification enough for the warnings and regret. Since it really is no secret that Apple are litigious assholes regardless of the merits of the claims (cf the notion that Apple's copy of PARC work was what MS copied, rather than MS copying PARC just as Apple did). Anybody with approximately 0.3% of a clue about computer history knows that Apple is a marketing company, and they do that very, very well, but they aren't much of a technical innovation company.
Just leaving this here:
Best Buy: Customers returned Samsung tablets because they thought they were getting iPads
If they clicked the Buy button next to the picture which wasn't an Ipad, and had the word Samsung on it, and was probably next to a phrase such as "Samsung Galaxy Tab" in big letters where a product name ought to be, then reviewed the order and saw that it said "Samsung Galaxy Tab" where an order for an Ipad would have the word "Ipad" and somehow thought they were buying an Ipad then they're not the "ordinary observer" to which the law refers. The only question I have is a what point they noticed it wasn't an Ipad.
A fake rolex attempts to be mistaken for a rolex. Galaxy Tab clearly does not try to be mistaken for an Ipad.
Wha about people buying them in store, Craigness? Given the number of Best Buy stores in the US that's probably where they get most sales.
Your argument is pointless since it's already been shown many returns of the Tab to Best Buy were from people thinking it was an iPad. That's already in the evidence and refutes your statement.
What does this say about best buys customers? They went into a shop and picked up a box that said 'Samsung Galaxy Tab' on it and with a picture of a tablet with 'Samsung' written on it that is even readable on poor quality low res youtube videos; let alone in real life! They then returned it saying they thought it said 'Apple iPad'...
Are their customers really that poorly educated that they can't read?
Metavisor, you apple apologists are getting more ridiculous by the day. The point is that someone who buys a tablet with Samsung written on it thinking it's an Ipad cannot be considered and "ordinary observer". They should be considered an "idiot". How can someone that stupid even know that they want an Ipad in the first place? The law on copying makes the sale of fake iPads illegal and the presence of idiots does not preclude things which are not fake Ipads from being sold to ordinary observers.
Do you spend all of your free time hunting the net to find dubious articles supporting Apple's right to rule the world?
Oooh! Some meatheads were too stupid to realise what they buying! You're using this article for evidence?
I would advise taking off the i-groinal attachment, turning off your i-device and learning to accept Apple is just another company that makes gadgets.
>Best Buy: Customers returned Samsung tablets because they thought they were getting iPads
for the downvoters on this, who obviously have never been anywhere near a best-buy-store (they're in the U.S. of A , in case you didnt know)
it's kind of like like saying you went into Curry's and expected to speak to someone who understands computers....
Interesting to read in the document regarding the FRAND patents that Samsung explicitly relate that their Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory licensing terms require cross licensing of mobile patents, that Samsung offered such a deal to Apple and they refused it, where as everyone else has signed up.
The desgin patent stuff being claimed by Apple also comes under a hammering of supreme court precedents, that invalidate their claims.
In the end Apple are going to loose big time and end up paying Samsung a large amount of cash.
How funny would it be if Samsung gave Apple a taste of its own medicine over its infringement of Samsung's brilliant inventions for combining a phone, camera and email in a single device or allowing music to be played whilst doing some other activity on the device? No sales until you disable those "stolen" ideas, Apple!
HTC did all that, and I hear they have a patent on it, so they could disrupt Apple if they were as pathetic as Apple. But Samsung also have a patent! Surely these things don't get issued for frivolous inventions which have already been invented? Anyway, I doubt prior art would mater. An import ban is just a case of "does this infringe" and "does the damaged party want an import ban whilst the patent is being tested".
to see if they can worm their way out of this one.
Apple has consistently copied others works, it's just that Samsung has deep pockets and can afford to fight the deal.
Hopefully when Apples tricks are exposed this whole patent business will fade away.
We, the paying public, is getting screwed. Royally.
So Apple hired the same designer that was working for Sony and had one of his prototypes made for Sony back in 2006 rejected by Sony management.
Then Steve Jobs hired him and asked him to create iPhone designs.
And the prototype he made for Sony looks like iPhone4/4S and not the 3GS Samsung is accusing Apple of having copied from that prototype.
So... how comes Samsung has access to Sony prototypes so easily? No one questions anything?
Sony rejected that designer works and fired him letting him go to Apple.
Sony doesn't own the designer.
A rejected prototype is not the same as a product released and being sold.
Only a corrupted judge and jury could tell that Apple copied anything from Sony. We will see if Samsung manages to corrupt enough judges to get Apple fined.
"So Apple hired the same designer that was working for Sony and had one of his prototypes made for Sony back in 2006 rejected by Sony management.
Then Steve Jobs hired him and asked him to create iPhone designs.
And the prototype he made for Sony looks like iPhone4/4S and not the 3GS Samsung is accusing Apple of having copied from that prototype."
You invented a scenario with no basis in reality which shows that Apple did no wrong and then assert this as proof that Apple did no wrong. Bravo!!
For your information, if you'd read the PDF you'd have seen the name of the designer tasked with knocking up copies of the design for the Sony phone - Shin Nishibori. A simple search on his name brings up his LinkedIn profile where we find:
Shin Nishibori's Experience
Industrial Designer
Apple Inc.
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AAPL; Consumer Electronics industry
July 2002 – July 2012 (10 years 1 month)
Joerge: Dude, you really don't get this stuff at all, do you? I am a California lawyer, but I don't specialize in intellectual property so I largely stay out of these discussions. Some of the comments here are insightful, some are rather amusing, but yours is just clueless. I suggest sticking with what you are good at, and give it another try after you have taken an opportunity to educate yourself. The documents in this case are interesting reading, and can be a real education.
I would not bother commenting, but by my opposable thumbs, sometimes you reach a point . . .
What I'd like to know is, if these companies hadn't allegedly copied each others designs, what do the courts think their products would look like today? Would we have phones that are round with triangular screens? No we wouldn't, because there's only certain ergonomic outcomes for products.
It's why all televisions look the same, as do laptops and most other products available.
The only way this is useful to Samsung is if they can say "no, we copied Sony, just as Apple did." As soon as you consider that, it's clear that Samsung's product is deeply close to Apple's, but both are at best only superficially related to a prior Sony product.
Although the court cases always come down to moronic specifics, Apple does have a large and serious issue to resolve. Just as Microsoft OEMs do now that MS has made them all second class partners with Surface. MS hasn't learned from Playsforsure/Zune, but Apple certainly has from the cloning of Apple II and Macintosh.
They can show that the industry was going in the direction of minimal decoration and large screens. If their device is only superficially related to a Sony product then they didn't copy it. The fact that they designed a phone so similar to the first Iphone without referencing the Iphone shows that they didn't take their design ideas from Apple.
The point is that Apple claim their design to be so revolutionary and unique that Samsung couldn't possibly have stumbled on it by accident and therefore must have copied the iphone.
By proving that Sony, LG, Samsung and others were doing the same thing before and after the iphone launch, the design is shown to be obvious. Factor in the evidence that the iphone was directly inspired by the Sony design and apple look less revolutionary and at best evolutionary.
In other news, it turns out the iphone isn't actually magical either.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
