Apple pounces on Samsung doc as proof of 'slavish copy' claims Apple presented a massive 132-page internal Samsung document that showed the South Korean firm comparing every inch of the iPhone with its early Galaxy S phone in its patent ruckus yesterday. The internal Samsung report, translated from Korean, goes over every aspect of the iPhone and looks at how the equivalent feature of the …
"Even if that's true though, the copying would have to be an infringement on Apple's actual patents for Apple to win this case. The jury would also have to accept that Apple had a right to those patents – that they aren't invalid because they're obvious or had been done before."
The crux of the matter.
Two downvotes already. It seems there are people out there who think it is a good idea for people to go round patenting things that are trivial or have been done before.
That's not what the patent system is supposed to be for. It is supposed to be a framework for stimulating innovation, so that people can profit from things they have put a lot of work into without someone else ripping them off. I personally don't think an icon , or having the form-factor of a rounded rectangle should be covered by this. A circuit design of a microprocessor would be an example of something I think should be patentable. This whole Apple vs Samsung affair just demonstrates how lamentably awry the various global patent systems have gone.
You miss the whole point. What is being said is that Apple should not be allowed to get a patent on a icon or the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners. Microsoft tried to use this mentality that the basic concept of Windows was patentable (ie the desktop), The idea was that all Gui's were a copy of Microsoft's windows gui. That got no where. I ask you this, if Apple can enforce a patient on a rectangle with rounded corners, why can Microsoft enforce a patent on of Window's GUI, hence shutting down Apple, smart phones, tablets, Linux desktop, etc?
No, the principle is that Apple is claiming a design patent for a confluence of design trends that had already emerged by 2007 and were already popping up all over the place by 2006 because of then-recent advances in radio/chip fabrications, lower-powered screens and economical hardened glass assemblies.
http://bit.ly/O5oiVY
"claiming a design patent for a confluence of design trends that had already emerged by 200***4***"
Fixed it for you. HTC and Samsung had phones that look not dissimilar to the iPhone long before Apple even dreamed of making a phone.
"Remove the feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design"
That whole sentiment rips Apple's argument - that Samsung were actively trying to copy their phones - to pieces. It's basically "oh shit, it looks to much like the iPhone - lets not do that eh?".
It's for the exclusive use of Fandroids to have a little dig at Apple.
There are three prerequisites to owning an Android phone
1. Lack of cash
2. Immaturity
3. Lack of social education
These 3 items put into a formula give the reason why the Fandroid acts and posts and downvotes the way he does. There is also some Pavlovian conditioning involved.
The formula, LC x (I x LSE) = E
E is of course Envy.
I dumped Tivo for the same reason I criticize Apple today.
Some patents are just wrong. They are destructive and anti-social.
Despite all of the fanboy blathering, Apple likes to drop the ball. It's that someone is around to pick up the slack for them. The courts should not be a crutch for Apple to avoid rivals.
Apple should not get to force me to use their crap. It's just as evil when Apple does it (versus Microsoft).
I liked Apple much better when it was on perpetual deathwatch.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Re: You miss the point of this forum
Prerequisites to owning an Apple phone
You missed one other point...
5. Successful."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. In your head.
What COWARDS don't seem to realise is that everyone else looks at you with your phone and know that they are going to have to s p e a k s l o w l y a n d c l e a r l y t o e n s u r e t h a t y o u u n d e r s t a n d.
But don't forget point 6. So far up thier own arse they can only talk shite.
And point 7. iPhone is so last decade.
You don't have to have "more money than brains" to own an iThing.
You simply have to have enough money to qualify to buy it because you THINK you're "rich". Many of my wife's friends have iPhones, iPads, etc - yet have had their houses foreclosed, huge debts, etc.
There is a simple explanation: They're financially stupid. They think it is cool to own an iThing and want to... even though Apple's filings show they PROFIT (average) $150/year per iThing. Every Darn Year It Still Works.
Do the math - 4 year life for the hardware = $600 PROFIT (not gross) into Apple's coffers. It's as overpriced as healthcare is in our USA.
What a depressingly insipid post. Not only is the underlying content poor, but the dodgy maths is badly expressed and almost entirely unexplained.
As for the prerequisites,
1. Many non- apple products are as (if not more) expensive than the iphone, making this argument both nonsensical and pointlessly materialistic - after all, if it's more expensive it's better, regardless of your requirements, right?
2. I have no idea how the original poster came by the maturity argument nor do I see how it actually has the slightest bearing on objective differences between devices.
3. "Social Education" (or it's apparent lack of) reeks of the incredibly stereotypical high-horse bourgeoisie image associated with apple products which I'd have assumed most normative apple users would prefer to avoid.
I'm not even taking a side, but I hope that post was a troll because if someone actually believes that then I'm genuinely worried for their mental health,
I hope the AC above was just trolling, but...
"There are three prerequisites to owning an Android phone"
I own an Android phone. Let's see how I add up:
"1. Lack of cash"
I'm not rich, but I could afford an iPhone/iPad outright if I wanted to, or a contract to get one for "free". I have to say, though, that there are other things I consider more important. I bought a second hand Atrix, costing me about half the cost of a new iPhone at the time, or probably about the same as the previous iPhone model second hand. I also recently bought a cheapo Android tab: I wasn't going to spend the money on either an iPad or a top-end Android tab because it is just a toy (and something to test some of my development projects on).
"2. Immaturity"
In most ways I would say this fits me (I'm always the first to giggle when someone farts), but it has no bearing on my choice of an Android phone. In fact, I would say I am more mature in many ways than the person who goes out and blows all their spare cash on an iPhone: I know that a top-end smart phone is not the most important thing to spend my money on.
"3. Lack of social education"
I don't even understand this. "Social education" sounds like brainwashing to me, but if you mean what I think I would not say I lack it.
There is no envy from me: iPhones/iPads are good peices of kit, but I prefer Android overall. I find it more pleasant to use, and I much prefer the control I have over the device. SWMBO has an iPhone, she loves it, but then she never liked the Android UI. It all comes down to personal preference.
And making generalised personal comments about a large swathe of people you have never met speaks more for your level of maturity and "social education" than it does for anyone else's, and it doesn't help your argument.
"You miss the point of this forum
It's for the exclusive use of Fandroids to have a little dig at Apple.
There are three prerequisites to owning an Android phone
1. Lack of cash
2. Immaturity
3. Lack of social education
These 3 items put into a formula give the reason why the Fandroid acts and posts and downvotes the way he does. There is also some Pavlovian conditioning involved.
The formula, LC x (I x LSE) = E
E is of course Envy."
Why would anyone envy such f king STUPIDITY! Hardly surprising from and iPhone owner tho.
If you really believed anything you wrote, and assumed that your peers would listen, you would not be and anonymous COWARD! Typical iPhone user, full of shite!
For the record, while I may not be rich, I paid more for my Samsung phone than it would have cost me to get an iPhone. I was willing to pay that just to have a quality phone that will last me a good amount of time and one that lets me use it any which way I please. For instance, I am currently running CyanogenMod 9 RC2 instead of the stock firmware and am wishing to contribute back to the open source community once I find the spare time.
Furthermore, I can purchase my hardware from any vendor, not just the one, and still use the same software I've already purchased in Google's market. I was so impressed with Android on my phone that I later purchased an Android tablet, the Asus Transformer Pad TF300T, which runs the same software I've already purchased for my Samsung phone. Put simply, I like being able to choose my hardware vendor independently of my software vendor. As long as Apple continues its current strategy of controlling every single aspect of my experience, I will not own an Apple device or, by extension, run OSX or iOS.
I am not a "Fandroid" - just simply a man who likes choices. While I personally may not like Apple, I certainly won't judge you if you choose to use their products, simply because it's your choice.
Lastly, I'm posting anonymously for one reason and one reason only - I do not wish to advertise publicly what items of value I own, no matter who makes them.
on Conan O'Brien's show:
Very Very large granules... forget shape, because if you cant tell an iPhone and an SGS apart when their on a desk in front of you, then you MUST have very bad eyesight...
at the very least they are completely different sizes, the iPhone is TINY and would have probably been the smallest phone on the desk!
Gosh, for $80,000 I think I could be confused as well. For five minutes anyway.
Frankly I am rather appalled at the tactics employed. If you have to lie and cheat to get your point across, my feeling is that your point is not worth being considered anyway.
If I were a judge I'd make sure any company coming forth with such behavior be fined a hefty amount for contempt of court.
You have an example of that?
Are you suggesting the individual committed perjury, and if so, please give an example.
Really, you are suggesting some pretty libelous things here, so let's see some facts.
Either references and appropriate analysis of why testimony was false or deceptive, or pull your f*ing head in!
Dweeb
"Gosh, for $80,000 I think I could be confused as well. For five minutes anyway.
Frankly I am rather appalled at the tactics employed. If you have to lie and cheat to get your point across, my feeling is that your point is not worth being considered anyway."
Firstly, I'm not sure where you are getting the "lie and cheat" from... Are you assuming that the witness was lying when she said that she picked up a Samsung phone by mistake out of a number of phones in the middle of a conference table? If so, why? Is it your opinion (based on what expertise?) that it is absolutely impossible to mistake one phone for another at a glance?
or, is it possible that;
Secondly, you are assuming that paying a consultant for testimony (remember that she is no longer an Apple employee) is necessarily and ONLY paying that person to lie? If so, I'll be interested to see if Samsung pays any outside consultants to testify when it's their turn and whether that will affect your opinion.
Thirdly, I'm assuming that the UK has similar laws regarding perjury to the ones in the US. Lying to the court under oath, even in a civil case, is taken VERY seriously here. You would pretty much have to assume that that $80K -- plus a few more -- would get eaten up in legal fees in defending herself before a criminal, not civil, court. And any lawyer that was found to have suborned a witness like that would stand a VERY good chance of being disbarred. A desperate-enough one might try it in a low-end case, but in a very public, high-profile one like this with lots of eyes watching every move -- not likely.
Fourthly, I'm hoping that no one who is accusing Apple of cheating by paying consultants was in the "I-shouldn't-have-to-serve-jury-duty-because-I'd-lose-MONE-E-E-E-Y-Y-Y!" side of the argument last week. Because that would just be... well... "hypocritical" is such a judgemental word, isn't it...? Personally, I see a difference between providing a professional service (specific expertise in a field with a limited pool of acknowledged experts) and serving a public duty (jury duty, where no specialized knowledge is required to begin with and where there is a large, non-specialized pool from which to choose.) The one where expertise is required and a limited number of experts exist is a different case from one where there is an, essentially, unlimited pool of equally-qualified/unqualified (take your choice) candidates from which to choose. It's supply-and-demand at work.
You have got to admit that paying someone what amounts to more than twice the annual salary of your average punter before the Taxman gets his grubby paws on it (translated to €, and compared to life here in the polders) seems a bit on the ....excessive side for a "simple" expertise court appearence.
I can see where compensation for preparation time, travel costs, and accommodation for a court appearance of an expert comes in.
But this amount is ridiculous, and would, at least with your average punter, raise eyebrows just a bit.
I have a Samsung Galaxy phone.
I have seen plenty of Iphones since they came out.
I am just a layman, no expert in any way, but I am pretty convinced that there is no way to confuse the two, even at a glance. In any case, that is indeed my opinion, whether you like it or not.
As far as paying for expert testimony, I do absolutely agree that expenses should be covered, but I feel that $80 thousand covers a lot more expenses than is justified. Another case of society's current impossibility to be reasonable with money. Supply and demand is not an excuse for being outrageous.
And as far as perjury is concerned, please allow me to laugh. Proving perjury in such a statement is scientifically close to impossible and everyone knows it. As far as lawyers' integrity is concerned, I refer you to the educational experience of Microsoft vs DoD, where we all learned just exactly how much straight-faced lying was possible in court, even with all your eyes watching, denouncing and, at times, positively frothing at the mouth with indignation. I don't remember any lawyers having been disbarred after that one.
Go ahead and get all uppity with your UK justice system if you want, I don't see that it is reacting any more strongly to this. If it was, Apple would have already gotten a rap on the fingers for wasting court time with a useless testimony. Oh, so a so-called expert mistook the two phones ? What does that prove in court ? Honestly, what does it prove ?
Nothing.
Frankly I am rather appalled at the tactics employed. If you have to lie and cheat to get your point across, my feeling is that your point is not worth being considered anyway."
You're clearly not from the west side of the pond, are ya? 'Round here, those tactics are de rigeur for the for this time of year (that being the political season).
I agree. The entire trial is a farce - I can just imagine that Apple is now going to bring Apple fan after Apple fan as a "witness", saying how they got confused. The problem is that Apple fans are always like this - they assume every phone with a touchscreen is an "iPhone", every music player is an "iPod", every media player/tablet is an "iPad", every ultra-portable laptop is a "MacBookProAirWhatever". If they see an Apple device with a feature, they assume that Apple are the only ones with that feature, and if they see it on another device, either that device must be an Apple product too, or it was copied. They don't say to people "Oh, I've got a smartphone/mp3 player/ultra-portable", it's "I've got an iPhone/iPod/iPad/MacAirBookProWhatever" because to them, there are no other generic devices. Even the media are at it - it's always someone's "iPhone" or "MacBook", where as other products are "phone" or "laptop"; or shops that have categories for "iPods and mp3 players", "iPads and tablets", "Macs and PCs".
It's all marketing for Apple - and it's worrying that the trial is being fought not by logic, evidence and facts, but by marketing. This kind of RDF logic should be thrown out of court.
It ought to be simple. Apple products are the ones with really blatantly obvious logos. The only way they could make them more obvious is if they lit up - oh wait. (Honestly, I always laugh when I see a band that uses an Apple PC - especially when it's a band that goes to extreme efforts over their look and their image, the lighting effects on the stage - and then ruining it all is a tacky light up Apple logo.)
"Even if that's true though, the copying would have to be an infringement on Apple's actual patents for Apple to win this case. The jury would also have to accept that Apple had a right to those patents – that they aren't invalid because they're obvious or had been done before."
So why are they going through the whole witness process trying to prove samsung stole the design when the design may not even be valid.
Wouldn't it be faster, and make more sense to confirm the patents are valid first?
As it's the best sample arguement I can think of. Right now they are taking Schrodinger to court for killing his cat, but they haven't opened to box to see if the cat exists yet.
The jury is made up of Normal People, not patent experts. Normal people struggle with the intricacies of patent law, but can easily understand arguments of the form "X is (or isn't) a copy of Y".
So far so what, but then you find yourself a clever lawyer who can seed the idea in the jury's heads that:
IF X is (or isn't) a copy of Y THEN you must find that the patent has (or hasn't) been infringed.
You are then onto a winner. Conversely, if your lawyer has to rely on tedious and incomprehensible patent arguments, then the outcome is much less certain.
It's a kind of appeal to emotion combined with a variant of the Chewbacca Defence.
I don't get this.
It's one thing to see a pile of items on a desk, reach for one, and pick up the 'wrong' thing because they look similar, but surely it's a whole different thing to suggest that people are walking into phone shops, wanting to buy an iphone and saying.
'Yeah, i want that phone, you know, the black one that's all screen, apart from the button at the bottom. yeah, the one with square-ish icons, and lots of rounded corners' .... and then being given the samsung, and not knowing the difference.
What i find to be much more likely is that someone (who falls in to the category of those who 'may be confused about what they are buying') walks into a phone shop, looking for an iphone, sees the iphone stand, and says 'i want one of those'.
If there were phone shops that had one section that was all just alternating samsung phones and iphones, then yes, people might buy the 'wrong' thing, but has anyone been in a phone shop recently? they are generally quite segregated, especially the iphones in their "hey, were too cool to mix with the other phones" sections.
I wish they would all just grow up. Yes, iOS is loosing ground to Android, but the iPhone is still outselling any individual Android phone, buy some distance (aren't they?) Can't apple just be happy with the fact that the have the best selling individual phone in the world right now? Apparently not.
This post has been deleted by its author
"you completely failed to notice that the "guy" is a she"
Actually I had read it and recognised that it was in fact a woman, it wasn't a failure of not reading it properly, just me rushing a casual comment at the end of my half hour lunch break and accidentally tapped guy instead of gal.
But since you also spelt along as "allong" I'll assume you also don't proof read or spell check your comments on el-reg before hitting Submit.
Yes, however isn't the point that the average person who does not have the "expertise in icon and GUI design" are the ones being confused? Therefore I posit that a non-expert should be the one to testify. The very idea of purchasing expert testimony is corrupt. A witness concious of the party that is responsible for their remuneration not be relied upon to be objective.
Yes - sales of individual phone models are hard to find (and very flawed as a comparison anyway, as I say in my other post). But in the UK at least, Samsung have had the number one selling phone model for the last year or so (S2, now the S3). Apple only had the number one selling phone model for one month (shortly before the S3 release).
Remember the "Android vs Iphone" days (conveniently forgetting #1 platform Symbian)? Interesting that we're now at the stage where one single model of thousands of Android devices now outsells Apple's flagship, when there's only a few Iphone models available. Yet still the media give the attention to Apple - what next, will they instead switch to saying "Iphone 5 outsells Galaxy Note 2"?
I wish they would grow up and quit doing this too, but I understand why Apple is doing this. I don't know about GB patent law, but from what I understand of US law if the patent owner doesn't vigorously defend a patent and it becomes ubiquitous then they essentially give up the right to the patent. Same thing with trademarks, if they don't defend them from the beginning and later decide they must because it is actually costing them money then their opponent can demonstrate that they haven't been defending and win through that argument. An example would be Xerox, the original developer of the gui, can't sue any other companies for aspects of their gui that were patented because they haven't done so for an extended time. If someone has a better handle on this, feel free to correct me as I'm not an expert on this by any definition.
"from what I understand of US law if the patent owner doesn't vigorously defend a patent and it becomes ubiquitous then they essentially give up the right to the patent"
You're thinking of trademarks, not patents but these are aren't actually patent claims from Apple but something halfway between patent and trademark. But no, they don't need proactively defending to survive.
It's actually common practice to *not* assert patents while waiting for others to adopt them, so called submarine patents you only spring when enough people are infringing.
In fact it's usually a very bad idea in the US to actually reach court with patent disputes because it's the leading way to lose your patent. In software 90% or are lost and Apple's design patents are so weak they're unlikely to survive this trip to court. Lose the patent and you can't get anyone to volunteer licence fees.
So why did Apple go this far? Simple, if they backed down those injunctions would vanish in short order. Going to court hurts Samsung a lot, win or lose.
It also keeps alive the illusion of threat from Apple, something few in the industry seem to take seriously at all even with Apple on the warpath. It would vanish completely if they quit.
"but the iPhone is still outselling any individual Android phone, buy some distance (aren't they?) Can't apple just be happy with the fact that the have the best selling individual phone in the world right now?"
I agree with your sentiment, and your post as a whole - but comparing individual phone models isn't a useful stat, as it is simply down to how different companies label their phones. Samsung and Nokia label their range with large numbers of different models, where as Apple simply label everything with "iPhone". Comparing Apple's entire phone sales to only one single model of Samsung's doesn't really make sense.
So Apple have plenty to be worried about - they've long been left in the dust by Android, and even Samsung's Android sales alone now outsell the Iphone platform, with Apple's phone sales losing to both Samsung and even Nokia. They are also rapidly losing sales, a drop of 10 million in the last quarter alone - it makes Nokia's slide look gentle.
But yes, it is odd that the mainstream media still portray Apple as "winning" by this flawed stat, whilst expecting us to be sympathetic to Apple because Samsung "copied".
They just want to force competitors to compete fairly by coming up with their own ideas and designs.
We don't really move forward buy one company coming up with good designs and others ripping them off.
Microsoft managed to come up with a highly original take on the mobile UI with WP7, something that doesn't steal the iOS design.
Both iOS and Android's icon grid approach both look like Palm OS from 2000 on steroids.
So basically what Apple want is no competition? I'd imagine they've got huge amounts of similar research comparing their prototypes to other phones, not to mention significant amounts of research determining which features of phones are perceived as valuable (e.g. attract a price premium), what design features are popular with end users and countless other things. They aren't powered by divine inspiration - they work hard to get the right ideas. To turn say that anyone else doing the same things is somehow breaking the rules is preposterous.
If Apple are as good as they think they are then they shouldn't need to call the waaaambulance every time one of their competitors does the same as they do and creates a product people want. But the reality is that they aren't _that_ special and that to create products that compete very well with theirs is not beyond the reach of other companies. Instead of doing what they claim to be best at - coming up with something truly innovative and significantly greater than what already exists - they just try and block anyone else from making the incremental improvements that are how most industries operate. If you get ahead, well done. If you can't stay ahead then that's not anyone else's problem.
It's simply not viable to spend years and cash either developing new things or figuring out the best way to achieve something, if other companies can just come in and copy everything you've researched and put into your product.
Samsung changed their designs almost overnight and this document explains clearly that they did it by copying Apple and the iPhone. Samsung put no hard work put int it, it was simply: this works and people like it let's copy it.
No. What they want is competitors that don't copy their products.
Easy.
RIM isn't copying, Moto isn't copying, Sony isn't copying, Nokia isn't copying (well, they don't have engineers anymore so they probably could not if they wanted to)....
Only Samsung is being sued.
There seems to be an error in the article:
"But Kare pointed to RIM's BlackBerry Torch as an example of a smartphone that had many of the features of an iPhone but which Apple doesn't see as infringing on its design."
...is missing the word "yet" at the end.
I agree. I actually have a Samsung GS2 and some of the interfaces for the Samsung apps are dead-ringers for the iphone ones. All the icons look the same and are arranged in the same places. I don't like the way that Apple is throwing its weight around in the courts but I can certainly see their argument.
Exactly!!!!
I upgraded from a iPhone 3G to a Samsung Galaxy S II and I was shocked at how much they had made the Android software and their own apps look like the iPhone interface and apps. My partner upgraded her phone at around the same time and the difference in the look of the interface of Android and the apps of the Galaxy S II and the Orange San Francisco once it had been flashed with a plain vanilla Android ROM was incredible.
They totally ripped off the look and feel of the iPhone. The screen is bigger, but that's it the rest is a total rip off. People who can't see it are either apple haters or delusional
Yeah, has a grid layout of icons with some launch icons at the bottom, and erm...?
Coming from Nokia it just reminds me of S60 when set into grid layout, and that was available pre-iPhone (though they defaulted the grid layout after the iPhone was launched).
And then just picking up the two phones, what are you greeted with? The stale old non-customisable grid layout of the iPhone as the home screen vs customisable widget-tastic desktop of the Samsung, not a grid in sight!
If anything the big difference is kids can mess about with the Samsung and make it look horible. That goes completely against the philosophy of the iPhone experience.
.... and yet the stores are full of Crackberry lookee likees with a rounded kinda case, a screen with keyboard below... Not seen any "rounded edge" type lawsuits coming from RIM (surprisingly maybe)
Sorry but even the "fanboi" in my household feels that Apple are becoming patent trolls and should just get on and compete on quality, feature and price rather that trying to litigate the competition out of existence. My handset was the result of a decsion made after researching phones that suited me... no confusion about what I was buying.
Hell even the ads for Siri are a joke... if it works that well, why the "this ad contains shortened sequences" small print? Apple cant even be completely honest even in advertising it seems.
Remember that article a few years ago, saying Apple were better than Nokia because Nokia spent more on R&D making them "less efficient"?
Yet when Nokia then reduces its spending, it's still spun as negative for Nokia...
If Nokia really have no engineers, then they're a lot more efficient than Apple, given that they manage to sell more phones with them, even with no engineers.
iPod, iPhone and iPad - isn't it someone else's turn to release a revolutionary device?
" the reality is that they aren't _that_ special" - they are to ther general public. when each of these devices were released, they were unlike anything else onthe market in terms of usability. And no, you can't quote 'MMS and multi-tasking' as the average member of the public didn't even know what these were.
and that to create products that compete very well with theirs is not beyond the reach of other companies.". Actually, it appears that it very hard ot create somethign original and that the public want.
I love techni-toys and really wish that some other company would bring out something cool.
The level of detailed analysis that Samsung underwent for this document shows that they're completely rubbish at figuring out user interfaces on their own but great and copying them. It's over 100 pages of "we're crap at this, but look how Apple does it, we need it to do it that way"
Samsung put no effort into figuring out these problems, they jus did what Apple does. Apple effectively became Samsung's design house for free. That's wrong and if it's not already illegal then it definitely should be.
The only thing 'revolutionary" about Apple's current crop of devices is that they fit in your pocket.
They are all highly derivative based on the work of others in the industry and necessary improvements in technology. These things are impressive to laymen because they don't have any background in tech.
It's just like Tivo.
Things look a lot less "original" in both tech and art if you don't have any background in the subject.
to fraudulently submit shitty "analysis" articles for publication in major outlets, while denying that Google paid them.
"Editor’s note: Before publishing this article. we asked a representative for the author whether the author had ever had a commercial relationship with Google, paid or unpaid. The representative said no. It turns out that was untrue. The author, in fact, has been paid by Google to write pro-Google white papers. Had we known of that fact, we would never have published this piece. We apologize to our readers."
http://gigaom.com/2012/08/05/apple-and-microsofts-patent-troll-spells-trouble-for-smartphone-innovation/
Probably a lot more than $80K...
I sold a horse once, then 7 or 8 years later I spotted him from 5 fields away in amongst other horses due to having had him for 6 months .
If someone from Apple can't remember their own companies designs, even an Ex employee who is supposed to be a "specialist in design and fel", it doesnt say much for her being an "expert" at it in any way.
it's like Picasso not being able to tell his own pictures from Dhali's
"The jury would also have to accept that Apple had a right to those patents – that they aren't invalid because they're obvious or had been done before."
Nope. This case is not about the validity of the patents. The jury have to take them as given. It's solely about infringement of utility patents, design patents, and trade dress.
Untrue. You do not have to take the patents as being valid even if the judge told you that you had to. The jury can determine innocence/guilt based on the spirit or letter of the law, even in a civil case. It's used by citizens to send a message that government is wrong in its prosecution. Look at O.J. Guilty based on forensic evidence, but the jury ignored the it (and his previous wife abuse dealings that the police never arrested him for) and returned a not guilty verdict because of past racism by the police dept. that had nothing to do with the current case. Same thing with whites that had killed blacks for no real reason... juries let them go (but for the wrong reasons). If the jury feels the that patents aren't worthy patents, then they can and should feel compelled to rule against Apple (same as if this were just a judge... see U.K. ruling). The problem with most juries, is that they are not knowledgeable in the area that the case is involved in. Then it's up to the lawyers to present experts that are good at explaining things (like my professor did at the Kennedy-Smith rape trial).
@ Fats Brannigan
“For each party’s patent infringement claims against the other, the first issue you will be asked to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent holder’s patents AND WHETHER THOSE PATENTS ARE VALID,” Koh explained to the jury. “If you decide that any claim of either party’s patents has been infringed AND IS NOT INVALID, you will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to the patent holder to compensate it for the infringement.”
Apple is paying their witnesses??/?
Is it legal to pay witnesses in the USA?
If I was a juror, I would NOT accept witness testimony as reliable if they were paid $80k
I could accept $500 - $1000 a day to cover loss of earnings, but $80K that is just crazy,
I personally think Apple are wrong, and their patents should be invalid, but if they paid me $80K to turn up for a day and testify for them... my opinion might suddenly change.....
So a former Apple employee, a graphics designer, can't tell the two apart at a glance? when the Samsung phone has a totally different home screen, a different size, a different logo, 2 capacitive buttons and one square button vs 1 round button, is an expert worth 80k?
Is there any wonder she is no longer working for Apple if her eye for detail is that bad, none of the GFX designers I've worked with would make such a mistake, because to them detail is everything!
To me it sounds like someone who happens to be in a position to 'help' apples case, took the money and spieled a story of a moment of distraction when she grabbed a phone without really looking...
This post has been deleted by its author
Yeah I don't get the "paid witnesses" thing either and don't really agree with it but to be fair, she's actually being paid $550p/h (mentioned elsewhere) which compared to what the lawyers on both sides are being paid for their work, is likely tiny by comparison.
I guess you have to factor in the idea that she is ONLY actually there at the 'request' of the Apple legal team as their idea of a "design expert", it's not like she was ever a neutral judge/court appointed witness to begin with.
She also has to actually "earn" her money by appearing both credible and not taking hypocritical personal attacks on her credibility/honesty by opposition lawyers personally, which wouldn't be easy when you know the same people attacking your credibility would not only do and say ANYTHING for a buck themselves but also have a vested financial interest in keeping this trial going on as long as possible.
As a jury member on this case you'd have to assume (and likely will/should have it pointed out to you by both legal teams) that all witnesses either side ends up presenting are on similar sorts of payment schemes.
The Samsung Lawyer might think they are clever attacking her credibility based on her "payment" but you'll now probably find the Apple legal team asking the same "payment" questions and getting the same answers from Samsung designated "expert witnesses" so neither side is likely going to benefit from the exposure of "payments", it'll just lead to further juror confusion and end up causing the case to run longer, which surprise surprise suits nobody but the lawyers billing at an hourly rate.
The ones I feel sorry for are the jurors (and potentially their employers) who are paid an absolute bare minimum for their time and service, if they're lucky enough to work for an understanding employer, the employer of the juror ends up having to pay/cover them for work they are not doing while in court.
It ends up being jurors, other companies and taxpayers who end up "footing the bill" for this battle between two large corporations who, considering the battle is all about honesty and credibility, BOTH actually lack, and have proven time and time again, to lack a whole lot of credibility and honesty themselves.
It's the price society pays to protect Intellectual property rights, whether it is actually worth it or not is still up for debate and far more complex and far reaching than one APPLE vs SAMSUNG case.
> Is it legal to pay witnesses in the USA?
In the US there's really no way to get around it. You want someone to speak on your behalf, you have to pay them for the opportunity cost involved. This can get quite painful sometimes and may make some types of litigation infeasible for all but the largest "mills".
$1000 an hour for an expert in a US trial is pretty standard.
The main point that came out in the cross-examination of Kare was that she was only commenting on the comparison between the Apple home screen and the Samsung app drawer, which is not the Samsung's default home screen. This is something Apple always gets away with in photos.
Samsung's lawyer made the point that a user would have to go through a boot screen with a giant glowing "Samsung" logo, a distinctive lock screen with puzzle pieces, and a home screen with widgets and a big Google search box, before pressing the Applications button to get to the app drawer, which does have icons for all the apps on the phone arranged in a grid.
Here's a smoking gun of a document, where Samsung themselves show how and why they copied every inch of the iPhone, but the commentards seem focused on how much some expert witnesses charged to come and testify.
Damage control much? Samsung must be proud of yo lot, that's up there with their court tactics.
Just you re-read the article and comments, and maybe the a document in question. You appear to have concluded that it contains evidence that samsung have clearly doen soemthing illeagal, say like use a patent without license.
This document, along with apples experts is nothing but spin they are trying to masquerade as evidence.
No, I didn't read the whole document, only enough to get a gist of the content. I'm afraid some editting I made on my post remvoed me suggesting the op do similar. Hard to believe I did edit that but I've been ill in bed all week near deaths door with man flu.
As for half in korean, that is true, of the document as a whole. But you do release the first half is an english translation and the second half is the original korean?
"As for half in korean, that is true, of the document as a whole. But you do release the first half is an english translation and the second half is the original korean?"
I'm just surprised one of the Samsung shills acknowledges the document even EXISTS..! But read it? Come on - that might shatter their fragile universe.
Why is it a smoking gun? Most companies perform competitive analysis where they do a detailed breakdown of Our Product X vs. Competitor Product Y to see how the products fare against each other. You don't think Apple buys competitors products and performs teardowns to see what chips and design techniques they are using? If you don't think so, you're deluded.
My impression is that the document does NOT say they copied Apple. (I may have missed something)
Every company makes very comprehensive assessments of competitors devices - that's standard practice. You find the good and bad points, and try to improve your device where it falls short. Now, does this document actually say to the engineers - "go off and copy it" - or does it say "this is where we fall short/are not as good. Go and improve our phone in those areas."
It certainly seems to be the latter, which is NOT a smoking gun.
"Now, does this document actually say to the engineers - "go off and copy it" - or does it say "this is where we fall short/are not as good. Go and improve our phone in those areas."
It certainly seems to be the latter, which is NOT a smoking gun."
In fact, the quote from the document highlighted in the article is completely the opposite:
"there's also the direction to "Remove the feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design""
To me, that suggests that after doing the comparison, Samsung felt their device might give the impression there was copying, with the directive being to address that.
"Samsung themselves show how and why they copied every inch of the iPhone"
And then added a few inches on, yes? And some extra buttons? And a big samsung splash screen?
What the document in question actually shows is that Samsung compared their phone to the iPhone and considered what improvements they could make to compete with the features of the iPhone. Like pretty mush any manufacturer of any product where they have a competitor in the market. Some of the icons on the Samsung phone might look a bit like some of the icons on the iPhone, but so what? Do you seriously beleive that the 'look and feel' of an icon is a sensible thing for the patent system to cover? If the icons were being copied verbatim, then Apple would have a case to say that Samsung are infringing their copyright, but they are not, and they don't.
You mean there is a document that compared the two phones and pointed out the bits that the iphone did better....as in differently.
Think about that one that again, the document Apple is using as a smoking gun to prove they are the same is the one that points how how they are....ahem...not the same.
Room spinning. Head hurts. Must lie down.
Shows how they 'compared' every inch of the two.
But shall we mention the smoking gun of the documents from Apple showing how they copied from Sony? Oh, but the power of the lawyers has meant that one is denied from presentation.
The way this is going I see Apple as much the same as Scientology. Their lawyers will stop at nothing and have vast sums of money to ensure they are right, even when they are wrong. Though Scientology go further and beyond the law in some very disturbing ways to get their way.
from another thread - "... copied from Sony" is a misreading of facts, or malicious ignorance.
I may have missed something important, but ...
My understanding of the "Jony" sketch was that it was a thought experiment performed at Apple (or for them) by someone being paid by Apple at the time. Like, "Hey, what if we took the design philiosophy of someone else (in this case Sony) and made a phone? How would it look?". I did not read that the design was ACTUALLY a Sony design.
If I thought of a catchy melody, and thought to myself, "Hey, what would Mozart have done with this" and then proceed to write a symphony in Mozart's style, would I be guily of anything whatsoever? Forget that Mozart is dead, since Mozart didn't think of the melody (I did), it is my work. Just because I like Mozart's style, doesn't mean Mozart is responsible for my symphony or that I in fact copied anything whatsoever.
Well, maybe that is too hard for people who are tone deaf :(
NoDroid
what you mean, when apple looked at an article of what SONY might be up to and got one of their designers to imagine the result, rather than Samsung who took an iPhone analysed how it did everything and then produced a knockoff. Are you serious?
Samsung tried to think different and their phones were getting crushed by the iPhone, so they took the simple route, lets make a phone thats looks enough like the IPhone to piggy back on its cool factor, that we can sell cheap enough to pick up sales
I wonder why samsung changed from the tocco style http://www.trustedreviews.com/Samsung-Tocco-F480_Mobile-Phone_photos
to the S3 style
http://www.outlived.co.uk/ads/free-samsung-galaxy-s2-with-3-months-free-line-rental-and-free-300-mins/
what could have possibly influence them.
You hate apple, but you cant help using a an apple knock off . SAD!!
"Samsung tried to think different and their phones were getting crushed by the iPhone"
Citation needed. Apple's phone sales were pretty abysmal for years, and I'm not sure they've ever outsold Samsung. The Wikipedia Smartphone article has referenced sales for smartphone OS figures, but if you've got some sales figures showing Apple phones outselling Samsung phones, I'd like to see it (and if it was true, then Apple and Samsung were getting even more crushed by companies like Nokia).
(Whilst the jury are lucky to get expenses covered...)
But lawyers are meant to be one-sided. An expert witness is supposed to speak on their expertise, and not based on taking sides. I don't have to worry that a lawyer might be biased towards the one paying for them. But if a witness is biased towards the one paying for them, that's a reason to dispute their evidence, surely?
This is common sense, no different to anything else. E.g., if a reviewer for a Samsung or Apple product was taking backhanders from Apple, we'd doubt their reviews.
I understand what you are saying regarding how a witness should have an unbiased opinion in comparison to a lawyer with a "one sided" argument.
The problem isn't so simple though when you consider WHO actually selects these "expert witnesses".
As it turns out, they are in-fact selected, from the beginning, by the individual "one sided","biased" legal teams which (along with them being paid) already makes them suspect as far as being "non-biased".
If an opposition legal team was given the option of "non-approval" for a witness to take the stand then you might have better "un-biased" witnesses but you'd also likely have both sides "rejecting" every witness from the opposing side. The way things currently work at least allows witnesses to be heard, whether they are biased or not is up to the opposing legal teams to prove/discredit which the Samsung lawyer did in this case by asking about her "payment".
It isn't necessarily that smart or clever a legal move however if Samsung are also "paying" their witnesses (which they likely are) as they too will now have their credibility compromised when asked the similar "payment" question by the Apple legal team.
With that in mind, it is hardly likely that Apple OR Samsung for that matter would call forward and pay a witness that wasn't likely to speak in their own agenda/best interests. It is best for the jurors to consider this upfront or be outright openly told by the Judge (or a no-biased court representative) how the system of "expert witnesses" works so that they are at least better educated to then make their own mind up regarding the credibility of a witness and their statement.
"Samsung has argued before that of course it looked closely at what Apple was doing, because (duh!) the two firms are competitors so they're going to analyse each others' gear. But this document gives Apple yet more ammunition in its claims that the Korean firm had set out to intentionally copy the Jesus-mobe."
I must have missed it, but I couldn't make the connection between analysing a competing product and 'intentionally copying' it. Or is the sole purpose guilt-by-association?
Then it should be fun getting my stuff onto and off of an iPhone then.
With an Android I can just plug it in and use it like a hard drive or run sshDroid and do the same thing but wirelessly.
Only ever treating your smartphone like a feature phone does not count here.
Are we dumb? Apple seems to think so.
I am a Samsung S series phone user and I would recognize an Apple phone a mile away. If an Apple user can't tell the difference as Apple is suggesting, then I would think twice about purchasing a device from a company that thinks so little of it's clients.
Yes it's ok - apple does know what's good for you. You tell people what's good for them, offer as little choice as possible and they follow. Look at their policy/regulations for languages available to develop (abomination of objective-c. )and publishing on their store - no difference, same strategy....
Copying happens in every industry?
When Dyson invented his "cyclone" vacuum cleaner, Hoover had to ditch its dust bags or go bust.
The Japanese stripped european cars to their component parts to learn how to make them better.
They also copied the Scotch whisky industry and made a reasonable alternative.
Competitors have to thoroughly analyse each others products to remain competative and it has always been so in the IT industry.
I'm struggling to see why Samsung would not analyse Apples products.
There is no doubt that the Iphone was ground breaking in many ways but so was the jet engine. (no pun intended)
Nah, for me, Apple will use every trick in the book to suppress competition.
"The fruity firm's design experts have been testifying to how much Samsung stuff looks like iDevices, with the latest, graphic designer Susan Kare, claiming the gadgets look "confusingly similar"." Yeah right, someone who's inside-out familiar with the Apple design and icon layout!
I would have thought maybe the word SAMSUMG at the top of the phone would be a dead give away that it's NOT an Apple iPhone? The rectangular button?!
Walk into a shop and ask for an iPhone and it'll be pretty obvious to anyone (apart from the witnesses paid $80,000) to see if you're given a Samsung Galaxy! For instance, the packaging, the loading screen logo etc.
People in these times are more savvy and do their research before parting with their hard-earned cash to be fooled like that... Even my technophobe Dad would know the difference!
This post has been deleted by its author
When will this end.
Yes there are similarities, but the same is the case in the reverse. Originally Apple had a very poor notifications interface, untill they copied that found in the Android OS; using the pull down notifications drawer.
I run both iPhone and Android for work/personal respectively and with with one click of the home button I could see any and all notifications on my android Device, whereas with Apple I would be forced to unlock the phone and check for red notification numbers. Now, since whatever update ages ago Apple have the app drawer.
I am waiting for Apple to adopt the widget interface too, as it simply makes for a better user experience.
As for Apple playing dumb with regards to attention to detail, is this really the same company that once asked Google to fix the shade of yellow in the second o in google as it was simply the wrong shade.
source: http://www.macstories.net/links/steve-jobs-googles-vic-gundotra-and-icon-ambulance-on-a-sunday/
This they notice, but one phone icon looking like another makes them cry heretic!
So basically what you saying is that Apple should spend millions on R'n'D designing a phone and everyone else should just be allowed to wait, copy the **** out of it and as long as they put their own companies logo on the sides that's ok?
What you gutted about is that Apple is not interested in the race to the bottom antics, which means cheap skates like you cant get the phones , so you relying on the likes of Samsung to to create the cheap good enough for you to buy. What you don't realise is without the likes of Apple putting in actually effort to make tech useable we will be stuck with lots of high end crap that is totally unusable.
I hope Apple stuff them and the rest of the industry get the message, put some effort into UI design and you wont have to wait for apple to do it for you!
Ah yes, it's the obnoxious and misleading "cheap" tactic - the fallacy of equating "cheap" as in "lower cost" with "poor quality". Just because one is the former, doesn't make it the latter. These are different meanings. In English, two words can have different meanings, it doesn't make them the same thing. It's unclear if you are just ignorant, or are intentionally trying to deceive people with this spin.
I'm sorry you sound angry - it must be hard when you find out you've bought an overpriced phone, only to find the people getting better deals also have features that you have to wait years for. I'm sorry.
No, it's the rank hypocrisy. Apple took all the best bits of other phones , then did their own. None of the bits in the first phones was unique, they'd all been done in other phones, but apple did them 'a bit better'.
A lot more expensive as well..
But to think anything in that first phone was innovative is bizarre. In fact it was way behind in a lot of areas.
FWIW, Apple have already admitted they also too other peoples phones to sort of technical issues. That's what ( as a coder involved with ui design) that Apple can patent " a colour", but just rip off technical patents and avoid frand.
What Samsung have done, which is worrying Apple, isn't to copy anything specific APART from finally paying some attention to detail, something Nokia should have done years ago.
> So basically what you saying is that Apple should spend millions on R'n'D designing a phone and everyone else should just be allowed to wait, copy the **** out of it and as long as they put their own companies logo on the sides that's ok?
Yes.
That's the way a free market works if you don't actually invent something worth creating a 20 year long patent on.
Apple makes mad money. No one should feel special sympathy for them. Your argument is stupid because clearly Apple has made back their investment several times over. They still have a first mover advantage that will likely yield them more mad money regardless of whether or not they get to treat the phone market like they own it.
As a computing device they are likely taking good advantage of what the rest of the industry has done over the last 30 years. That includes the spiffy multi-touch stuff too.
yeah, but they have to first know that such a document exists before the subpoena, don't they? Even if the court makes a blanket request for all the documents, communications etc since god knows when, it is up to the company to share information that they deem fit, isn't it? Or does the court send government authorities to confiscate all the material before the trial starts? How does the court and the other party (Apple, in this case) know that such incrimination material exists in the first place?
"buyers would actually be confused by what they were buying."
The way to tell is to answer these three questions:
a) Did I buy this inside a glass cube from a bald thin guy in skintight black jeans and a golf shirt who rang up the purchase with an iPhone?
2) Did I queue for three days to get in the store to buy my phone?
*) Do I have to create an iTunes account to modify the contents of my phone?
Beware: If the guy you bought from was thin and wearing skintight black jeans but was *not* bald, you may have been dealing with a sales representative of Adobe Corporation and may have bought a copy of full-product Acrobat or Creative Studio, neither of which can be used to make calls (though I'm told the iPhone voice quality is only mediocre so there is still chance for confusion).
Safety check: Does it say "Samsung" on the case?
This post has been deleted by its author
The way the apologists are focusing on every minuscule point… EXCEPT the dirty red handed Samsung document that says 'make it more like the iPhone!'.
You people are either *monumentally* stupid, or Samsung shills. I seriously doubt *anyone* could be so stupid for real, so that leaves wilfully ignorant or the shill option which is a bit concerning really.
Either that or your bizarre irrational hatred for a company that makes computers overrides any cognitive thought process.
You are calling others a shill? Seriously?
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/07/27/apple_snatched_sony_style/
Samsung has a doc saying to make their phone more like the iPhone. There's a doc where Apple says to make their phone more like the Sony. So? Each company did a comparison and looked to see where they felt they were lacking compared to competitors. Is this not a normal thing to do? You know, this is all smoke and mirrors to try to duck away from the question of whether or not these patents are even valid.
Whatever, this issue went both ways, and you accusing people of being (quote)"*monumentally* stupid"(unquote), etc, it is showing your own true colours.
Once again we see an attempt to dilute hard facts with wilful ignorance.
ACTUAL FACT: Samsung have a document that REFERENCED AN EXISTING DEVICE, namely the iPhone (which they were CLEARLY trying to copy) and they even say 'make it like the iPhone!'
ACTUAL FACT: *APPLE* designed a phone idea 'like Sony MIGHT' (that *DID* *NOT* *EXIST* *AT* *ALL*..!).
As in, 'Hey Jony - if Sony made a phone, what do you think it of might kind of look like?'
….as opposed to:
'Hey Kevin - the iPhone is better than our designs - copy it.'
That is not the same thing whatsoever.
I find it hard to accept you are actually too stupid to comprehend the difference here so again it's wilful ignorance at play. It HAS to be.
100 +/- 20 people bought Samsung in error thinking they were getting an iPhone; 10 +/- 2 bought an iPhone in error thinking it was a Samsung. Many more bought a Samsung either because they preferred it, or an iPhone because they preferred thar. The goal of Apple's lawsuit is to enlist the government's aid in obtaining a monopoly in the high-end cell phone market by removing their more successful (sales count) although less profitable competition. The lawyers' goal is to win or lose (and not care which) at a billable rate of $1K+ per hour. And the expert witnesses' goal is to support whichever litigant is paying them at a rate of a few hundred dollars an hour. The Patent and Trademark Office's goal, of course, is to issue the patents that fuel this part of the economy.
The main losers are all the rest of us.
To a lot of the public, iPhone, iPad and iPod are now eponymous so they may have a Samsung iPhone, a Creative iPod and an Advent iPad in the same way as they have a Dyson hoover. They are concerned with the function of the product not who made it. Naturally, this excludes the Brand sheep who choose one regardless of quality, price or usefulness just because it has a certain logo on.
If people ask for an iPhone and take away a non-iPhone, it isnt their confusion - it is the sellers deception and that is no manufacturers fault.
One of the ironies of the alleged "smoking gun", apart from the fact that it spells out all the differences between the two, is that it would have emerged from a strategy to make the Samsung phone more competitive with the iPhone (i.e. "more like the iPhone", but only complete idiot would confuse "more like the iPhone" with "copy the trade dress and appearance of the iPhone so people will think they''re buying an iPhone and getting a Samsung"). Because the strategy was to _improve_ the Samsung design, it would have spent little time on any feature where they believed the Samsung unit was already superior, meaning that the results would look very one sided. Don't confuse this document with something from Samsung's sales force, which would shine brightly on all Samsung's strengths and gloss over the iPhone's...
Meanwhile, for all those who rant on about how Apple should be immune from competition because, apparently, they worked really really hard, I'd point out that Samsung is counter-suing Apple for using a Samsung patent which every other manufacturer has licensed, but Apple is just using without paying Samsung a penny.
To summarize: Apple claims Samsung copied the iPhone look _to the point of being confusingly similar to an informed consumer_, while Samsung claims that Apple is using patented technology without paying for it, a claim that Apple confirms, but justifies on the basis that they (Apple) thought Samsung wanted too much money for their technology (an observation that Samsung counters by pointing out that Apple didn't bother trying to negotiate, they just went ahead and took what they wanted).
To summarize the summary: Apple claims Samsung made their phone look too like the iPhone, while everyone agrees Apple stole Samsung technology, but disagree on how much the technology should have cost had Apple been polite enough not to steal it.
APPL didn't pay Samsung because Samsung tried to extort APL by demanding a FRAND patent payment far in excess of what other manufacturers are required to pay ( a dirty trick Moto has also tried on APPL). Samsung will be required to prove in court that their demands are non-discriminatory in order to get payment from APPL larger than what others pay.
No-one is paying what Samsung demanded of APPL according to court documents.
Samsung will have an uphill battle I suspect.
I've found myself wondering why the cursor isn't moving, and then noticed I had hold of my phone and not the mouse. I am an informed computer user, who really should be able to tell the difference, but clearly Logitech have copied my phone, by making it black, a few ounces in weight and hand-sized.
Prepare for the law suit.
btw:- it's not an iPhone - it would have been, but for the fact I run Linux on the desktop and on the laptop - and I am not about to dual boot into windows to run iTunes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
