Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Samsung US strategy exec wavers on stand in Apple trial

updated 03:35 am EDT, Mon August 6, 2012

Shown documents of Samsung studying Apple products

Apple's fourth witness in the California-based Apple vs. Samsung trial was a Samsung employee, Samsung's US Chief Strategy Officer Justin Denison, who was questioned about some Samsung documents as well as a deposition he gave in 2011. Apple's attorneys tried, with mixed success, to use Denison to paint Samsung as openly copying Apple, and at two points got him to admit he could not stand by some of his earlier testimony.

Denison was on the stand representing three branches of the South Korean electronics giant: the parent company Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA). After clarifying the three branches, Apple counsel William Lee asked Denison if he was under an obligation to take an instruction that came from the head offices of those divisions, or the parent company. Denison answered that communications were usually a "conversation" that involved a lot of back-and-forth but could be interpreted as directives.

Apple's attorney asked Denison a series of questions about a deposition given in 2011 on the topic of Samsung copying from Apple. In the video deposition, Denison said that he talked to Samsung designers (some of which spoke Korean and thus were interpreted) and that they told him they hand not considered, studied, drawn or copied anything from Apple's product designs. The Apple attorney went out of his way to add that in the context of these conversations, benchmarking should be considered different from copying, a point to which Denison agreed.

Following the playing of the deposition in which Denison claimed Samsung didn't copy anything, Lee asked Denison if he still stood by that testimony as it related to the products contested in this case. Denison, over the objection of Samsung's lawyers, said no, but then waffled on the answer a bit. Samsung's request for a sidebar with the judge at that point was denied.

Apple's attorney Lee then introduced an internal Samsung presentation called "Beat Apple Response" which was dated March 25, 2011 -- the same day the iPad 2 was introduced. Denison said that he created the presentation at the direction of Samsung's CEO, Bill Choi. Included in the presentation are notes from another presentation Samsung gave in November 2010 called "Why [Samsung] should care about Apple." Lee points out another section of the presentation, which dealt with strategy to compete against the iPhone at the time and had a "Recent Apple Analysis projects" page.

Lee also showed portions of a later (2012) Denison presentation entitled "Three Horse Race Becoming a Two-Horse Race between Apple and Samsung" to establish that in fact Samsung had been carefully studying Apple, in contradiction to Denison's deposition testimony. He was shown another presentation called "Relative Evaluation Report on [Samsung's Galaxy smartphone, known internally as S1] and iPhone" that was dated March 2, 2010. The report showed a comparison of the iPhone's ability to zoom in on web items with a double-tap and recommended that the Galaxy's double-tap zoom needed to be improved.

Other pages of the same presentation showed direct comparison of the iPhone and the Galaxy phone in a number of areas, including the UI and menu icons, each with directions for improvement to the Samsung phone. Denison was again asked at this point if he stood behind his November 2011 deposition, but Denison dodged the question by saying the models being discussed in the presentations and in the case now aren't the same ones he was asked to comment on in that deposition. Judge Lucy Koh noted that she disagreed with Samsung on Denison's ability to speak more broadly on the topic of "copying."

Following a break, Samsung lawyers also quizzed Denison, asking him to clarify which models of phone he was speaking of in the 2011 deposition. In response, he mentioned the Galaxy Tab, the Droid Charge, the Galaxy S and the Infuse4G. Denison was asked if recommendations of the kind seen previously were made when comparing the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S, and he said he was not aware of any.

Samsung's attorney handed Denison an iPhone and an Infuse4G and asked him to describe how they are different. Apple objected to this, however, so Denison simply described the Infuse4G while the two phones were handed around to the jury. The judge shortly afterwards prevented Denison from describing what the Infuse4G designers had been going for, since the designers themselves would be testifying later. The Galaxy S smartphone and the Galaxy 4G were also introduced and shown to the jury.

Samsung's attorney asked Denison why the Samsung models have rounded corners (like the original iPhone and subsequent models). He replied that rounded corners fit better in one's hand, and slide into pockets more easily. He added that the design is a durability issue -- if one drops a phone with a sharp edge, it is more likely to break. He was also asked about why phones have rectangular screens, black masks around the screen, and why the screen in centered, with simple explanations that painted each as a logical, inevitable option (even though Samsung itself has occasionally abandoned these concepts, for example producing phones with sharp corners and curved glass).

When asked if Samsung wants to beat Apple, Denison said that the company wanted to sell more products, but when asked if Samsung only wanted to beat Apple, he said that Samsung "monitor[s] all competition" in the market -- despite having authored a presentation that said that the smartphone market was essentially down to just Samsung and Apple.

Denison described Samsung's strategy for dominance as being different from Apple's, in that the company wanted to deliver "multiple products at multiple price points" unlike the strategy Apple had pursued for most of the iPhone's product cycle. He added that copying, in his view, did not create a sustainable advantage.

He pointed out that Apple introduces roughly one new model every year and is still primarily identified with one carrier in most markets. Samsung, he said, introduced 50 models in 2011, offering different carriers different feature sets and different price points. Like Apple, Denison said STA (the US branch of the company) spent about $1 billion in marketing.

He estimated that the parent company had spent about $35 billion over the last few years on research and development, and said there are around 50,000 engineers and upwards of 1,200 designers at Samsung. He added that Samsung has been the second most-awarded patent creator since at least 2008, and mentioned that the company was the first with a camera phone, and pushed technology such as Super AMOLED displays.

Asked if he thought consumers bought phones as an "impulse" decision, he offered the oddly specific statistic (not sourced, but presumably from Samsung's own research) that customers take six weeks to decide which smartphone to buy. Denison was asked if he'd heard of any examples of people buying Samsung phones thinking they were iPhones, and he said no.

The last report exhibited was one by Denison that came out last year entitled "iPhone 5 counter strategy" but he pointed out that as Apple surprised the industry by not coming out with an iPhone 5, the information in the document was likely to be inaccurate. Denison is expected to re-take the stand later today at noon eastern time.



By Electronista Staff
toggle

Comments

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by NewsPosterView Post

    Apple's fourth witness in the California-based Apple vs. Samsung trial was a Samsung employee, Samsung's US Chief Strategy Officer Justin Denison, who was questioned about some Samsung documents as well as a deposition he gave in 2011. Apple's attorneys tried, with mixed success, to use Denison to paint Samsung as openly copying Apple, and at two points got him to admit he could not stand by some of his earlier testimony.

    Denison was on the stand representing three branches of the South Korean electronics giant: the parent company Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA). After clarifying the three branches, Apple counsel William Lee asked Denison if he was under an obligation to take an instruction that came from the head offices of those divisions, or the parent company. Denison answered that communications were usually a "conversation" that involved a lot of back-and-forth but could be interpreted as directives.
    Apple's attorney asked Denison a series of questions about a deposition given in 2011 on the topic of Samsung copying from Apple. In the video deposition, Denison said that he talked to Samsung designers (some of which spoke Korean and thus were interpreted) and that they told him they hand not considered, studied, drawn or copied anything from Apple's product designs. The Apple attorney went out of his way to add that in the context of these conversations, benchmarking should be considered different from copying, a point to which Denison agreed.
    Following the playing of the deposition in which Denison claimed Samsung didn't copy anything, Lee asked Denison if he still stood by that testimony as it related to the products contested in this case. Denison, over the objection of Samsung's lawyers, said no, but then waffled on the answer a bit. Samsung's request for a sidebar with the judge at that point was denied.
    Apple's attorney Lee then introduced an internal Samsung presentation called "Beat Apple Response" which was dated March 25, 2011 -- the same day the iPad 2 was introduced. Denison said that he created the presentation at the direction of Samsung's CEO, Bill Choi. Included in the presentation are notes from another presentation Samsung gave in November 2010 called "Why [Samsung] should care about Apple." Lee points out another section of the presentation, which dealt with strategy to compete against the iPhone at the time and had a "Recent Apple Analysis projects" page.
    Lee also showed portions of a later (2012) Denison presentation entitled "Three Horse Race Becoming a Two-Horse Race between Apple and Samsung" to establish that in fact Samsung had been carefully studying Apple, in contradiction to Denison's deposition testimony. He was shown another presentation called "Relative Evaluation Report on [Samsung's Galaxy smartphone, known internally as S1] and iPhone" that was dated March 2, 2010. The report showed a comparison of the iPhone's ability to zoom in on web items with a double-tap and recommended that the Galaxy's double-tap zoom needed to be improved.
    Other pages of the same presentation showed direct comparison of the iPhone and the Galaxy phone in a number of areas, including the UI and menu icons, each with directions for improvement to the Samsung phone. Denison was again asked at this point if he stood behind his November 2011 deposition, but Denison dodged the question by saying the models being discussed in the presentations and in the case now aren't the same ones he was asked to comment on in that deposition. Judge Lucy Koh noted that she disagreed with Samsung on Denison's ability to speak more broadly on the topic of "copying."
    Following a break, Samsung lawyers also quizzed Denison, asking him to clarify which models of phone he was speaking of in the 2011 deposition. In response, he mentioned the Galaxy Tab, the Droid Charge, the Galaxy S and the Infuse4G. Denison was asked if recommendations of the kind seen previously were made when comparing the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S, and he said he was not aware of any.
    Samsung's attorney handed Denison an iPhone and an Infuse4G and asked him to describe how they are different. Apple objected to this, however, so Denison simply described the Infuse4G while the two phones were handed around to the jury. The judge shortly afterwards prevented Denison from describing what the Infuse4G designers had been going for, since the designers themselves would be testifying later. The Galaxy S smartphone and the Galaxy 4G were also introduced and shown to the jury.
    Samsung's attorney asked Denison why the Samsung models have rounded corners (like the original iPhone and subsequent models). He replied that rounded corners fit better in one's hand, and slide into pockets more easily. He added that the design is a durability issue -- if one drops a phone with a sharp edge, it is more likely to break. He was also asked about why phones have rectangular screens, black masks around the screen, and why the screen in centered, with simple explanations that painted each as a logical, inevitable option (even though Samsung itself has occasionally abandoned these concepts, for example producing phones with sharp corners and curved glass).
    When asked if Samsung wants to beat Apple, Denison said that the company wanted to sell more products, but when asked if Samsung only wanted to beat Apple, he said that Samsung "monitor[s] all competition" in the market -- despite having authored a presentation that said that the smartphone market was essentially down to just Samsung and Apple.
    Denison described Samsung's strategy for dominance as being different from Apple's, in that the company wanted to deliver "multiple products at multiple price points" unlike the strategy Apple had pursued for most of the iPhone's product cycle. He added that copying, in his view, did not create a sustainable advantage.
    He pointed out that Apple introduces roughly one new model every year and is still primarily identified with one carrier in most markets. Samsung, he said, introduced 50 models in 2011, offering different carriers different feature sets and different price points. Like Apple, Denison said STA (the US branch of the company) spent about $1 billion in marketing.
    He estimated that the parent company had spent about $35 billion over the last few years on research and development, and said there are around 50,000 engineers and upwards of 1,200 designers at Samsung. He added that Samsung has been the second most-awarded patent creator since at least 2008, and mentioned that the company was the first with a camera phone, and pushed technology such as Super AMOLED displays.
    Asked if he thought consumers bought phones as an "impulse" decision, he offered the oddly specific statistic (not sourced, but presumably from Samsung's own research) that customers take six weeks to decide which smartphone to buy. Denison was asked if he'd heard of any examples of people buying Samsung phones thinking they were iPhones, and he said no.
    The last report exhibited was one by Denison that came out last year entitled "iPhone 5 counter strategy" but he pointed out that as Apple surprised the industry by not coming out with an iPhone 5, the information in the document was likely to be inaccurate. Denison is expected to re-take the stand later today at noon eastern time.



    First off why the strike through?

    Second, I find this absurd that Apple is so stupid and arrogant that they think they invented a rounded rectangle phone:

    "Samsung's attorney asked Denison why the Samsung models have rounded corners (like the original iPhone and subsequent models). He replied that rounded corners fit better in one's hand, and slide into pockets more easily. He added that the design is a durability issue -- if one drops a phone with a sharp edge, it is more likely to break. He was also asked about why phones have rectangular screens, black masks around the screen, and why the screen in centered, with simple explanations that painted each as a logical, inevitable option (even though Samsung itself has occasionally abandoned these concepts, for example producing phones with sharp corners and curved glass)."

    What about studying the competition? I mean, imagine studying your competitors! Who does that anyway!

    I like the part about Samsung being one of the first to offer a camera phone. Should Samsung sue Apple for making a camera phone?

    "Asked why Apple puts cameras on its phone, it said that customers don't like carrying two devices. And that because they made the camera phone magical, they should have a monopoly on it. Forget the people who originated and invented this stuff years ago."

  1. Waragainstsleep

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: 03-20-04

    Apple is trying to imply that Samsung switched to rounded corners after they saw it on the iPhone. Its not a patent dispute, the problem here isn't that Samsung used rounded corners on a phone, its that they saw them on the iPhone and included them on the Galaxy to make it more like the iPhone. Once again, difficult to prove, but probably true. Legally speaking, without testimony from someone who was at Samsung or a leaked email or memo saying "The CEO told us to put rounded corners on it to make it look like an iPhone", Apple would never win that specific case.

    These design disputes do not require that sort of hard evidence since only an idiot would leave a trail like that when stealing a design. Requiring such evidence would encourage industrial espionage and criminal behaviour. Apple is hoping to pile up enough 'soft' evidence to convince a jury they are in the right. It will be a laundry list of these smaller details that aren't protected by patents, combined with the timings of the decisions to include or change to these iPhone-like features, plus whatever they can find that implies Samsung feared/envied/admired Apple products and deliberately targeted Apple and Apple customers.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    Apple is trying to imply that Samsung switched to rounded corners after they saw it on the iPhone. Its not a patent dispute, the problem here isn't that Samsung used rounded corners on a phone, its that they saw them on the iPhone and included them on the Galaxy to make it more like the iPhone. Once again, difficult to prove, but probably true. Legally speaking, without testimony from someone who was at Samsung or a leaked email or memo saying "The CEO told us to put rounded corners on it to make it look like an iPhone", Apple would never win that specific case.
    These design disputes do not require that sort of hard evidence since only an idiot would leave a trail like that when stealing a design. Requiring such evidence would encourage industrial espionage and criminal behaviour. Apple is hoping to pile up enough 'soft' evidence to convince a jury they are in the right. It will be a laundry list of these smaller details that aren't protected by patents, combined with the timings of the decisions to include or change to these iPhone-like features, plus whatever they can find that implies Samsung feared/envied/admired Apple products and deliberately targeted Apple and Apple customers.



    I agree with most of this. The problem I see though is that if for some reason Apple got a judgement in its favor, on appeal the higher courts would rip this up. The reason is that many of the design related "dress" that Apple is claiming Samsung copied... Apple has no ownership over.

    In other words, they were NOT the first with these designs. Should XDA sue Apple over "a smartphone with rounded corners"? Should Samsung sue Apple for putting a camera on a phone, some them and Sony pretty much invented years before the iPhone?

    It becomes totally absurd, and so is the evidence Apple is presenting. Look there, Emails at Samsung talking about how they have to beat the iPhone! Wow! How incriminating!

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world does this. Apple even codenamed early iPhone prototypes N95 after Nokia's phone. They even looked at competitors' phones in the iPhone Keynote and showed pictures comparing theirs to... the other guys.

    I mean please. Last week I audited Apple Pages because we make a competing application. I traced moused movements and counted the number of clicks to achieve x on things. So our program would be more efficient at certain things. Should Apple sue me?

    Sorry but this trial is ridiculous. The only hope in hell Apple has is if, as you have alluded to, the Galaxy S looks so much like the iPhone that it confused consumers. That Apple has to demonstrate this. And this MUST be because... Mostly because of hardware because confusion over ANDROID is far too easily being confounded with Samsung. And Android belongs to Google.

    In other words and in my view, the Galaxy S doesn't look enough like the iPhone that I get confused. That even if some design elements were picked up by Samsung, the look of the device is as much defined by the hardware as it is the software. And there's lots of rounded rectangle phones out there with a grid of icons... Apple should go after Google...

  1. besson3c

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 03-03-01

    Does it say in any of the Steve Jobs books what he would have liked to have replaced the US patent system with?

  1. chas_m

    MacNN Staff

    Joined: 08-04-01

    If this trial were about consumer confusion regarding the iPhone and Samsung's knock-off phones, Apple would likely lose -- luckily, this trial isn't about that (it would have been the nail in the coffin, but it's not what Apple has to prove to win). All Apple has to do here is establish that Samsung took a sharp left turn from their previous designs when the iPhone came out.

    If there comes a trial that's just about the deliberate confusion of the Galaxy Tab and the iPad, Apple's already won that one twice over and would win it in the US. Much more blatant there.

  1. chas_m

    MacNN Staff

    Joined: 08-04-01

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post


    First off why the strike through?



    Its' due to an error in the forum software that mistakes brackets (which are sometimes used to modify a quote) for code.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post

    If this trial were about consumer confusion regarding the iPhone and Samsung's knock-off phones, Apple would likely lose -- luckily, this trial isn't about that (it would have been the nail in the coffin, but it's not what Apple has to prove to win). All Apple has to do here is establish that Samsung took a sharp left turn from their previous designs when the iPhone came out.
    If there comes a trial that's just about the deliberate confusion of the Galaxy Tab and the iPad, Apple's already won that one twice over and would win it in the US. Much more blatant there.



    You don't get it. This is focused on design. Susan Kare icon designer is even taking the stand. Apple has to demonstrate much more than Samsung taking a "left turn". You seem to oversimplify the case. Apple has to go all the way to showing they've been financially harmed by Samsung "copying" their iPhone in design. And even if they can show they lost marketshare to Samsung, it implies ZERO wrongdoing by Samsung. Anyone can make a widget and soak up marketshare from competitors, doesn't mean you did anything wrong.

    But here's the big, big problem for Apple that you keep missing: even if they have Emails from Samsung saying to copy design elements of the iPhone, where will this get you? Unless you can demonstrate confusion in the market, it won't get you anywhere here because the design elements that Apple is accusing Samsung of copying are NOT OWNED BY APPLE, like the rounded rectangle. So anyone can use these design elements with impunity because there is no ownership over them. They have been widely used for years well before Apple came around.

    So the point is that Apple must take the sum total of these "soft" things and demonstrate that the Galaxy S looks too much like the iPhone that it causes confusion. Then they have to demonstrate why their dollar figure of dmages is rational.

    Let me illistrate this way: you can go a make a car with wheels, a steering wheel, headlights, cruise control... And not pay a cent in licensing fees or be litigated against because none of these things are owned by anybody. But if you make a car that looks so much like a competitors then you may face a lawsuit. The prosecution MUST demonstrate a lot of confusion in the market or else they won't have a case.

  1. Waragainstsleep

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: 03-20-04

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    Unless you can demonstrate confusion in the market, it won't get you anywhere here because the design elements that Apple is accusing Samsung of copying are NOT OWNED BY APPLE, like the rounded rectangle. So anyone can use these design elements with impunity because there is no ownership over them. They have been widely used for years well before Apple came around.



    How does ownership or lack thereof relate to confusion in the marketplace?


    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    So the point is that Apple must take the sum total of these "soft" things and demonstrate that the Galaxy S looks too much like the iPhone that it causes confusion.



    Thats what I've been saying.

    You may have noticed that cars that look most similar to other cars do so for one of two reasons. One is because they share a chassis (like cars from Audi, Skoda and Seat that were all based on the VW Golf chassis), the other is due to licensing. Daewoo made one based on the Vauxhall Astra and the Mk 2 Golf was still on sale in South Africa when I was there in 2006 under a different guise.

    There is a reason that car companies don't copy each other, a reason that holds across many many different products and markets but for some reason technology companies seem to think they can get away with ignoring it.

  1. msuper69

    Professional Poster

    Joined: 01-16-00

    Before the iPhone, there were no phones like the iPhone.

    After the iPhone, there are more phones like the iPhone than you can shake a stick at.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post


    How does ownership or lack thereof relate to confusion in the marketplace?
    Thats what I've been saying.
    You may have noticed that cars that look most similar to other cars do so for one of two reasons. One is because they share a chassis (like cars from Audi, Skoda and Seat that were all based on the VW Golf chassis), the other is due to licensing. Daewoo made one based on the Vauxhall Astra and the Mk 2 Golf was still on sale in South Africa when I was there in 2006 under a different guise.
    There is a reason that car companies don't copy each other, a reason that holds across many many different products and markets but for some reason technology companies seem to think they can get away with ignoring it.



    The point is that because you use a steering wheel, wheels, a windshield, a trunk, seat belts... a host of things invented by other people where the sum total makes your product look like a "car" doesn't mean you "copied" someone. Copying being the implication that you have incriminated yourself. That it's something you're not allowed to do, at least without paying licensing fees.

    Some cars look very similar to each other. In fact so similar that if you're like me and aren't into cars, economy cars fir instance all look pretty much the same: buckets of plastic.

    The point in this case is that Samsung can use rounded corners amd a rectangle all it wants because Apple doesn't own that design. If they did the whole industry would have to license that design from Apple. So you can't say Samsung "copied" Apple with a rounded rectangle phone and expect anything to happen to them. They can use that design all they want without worrying about a company like Apple stoppng them. And so can anyone else. And the reason again is simple: Apple is NOT the originator of that design and has ZERO ownership over it.

    Same with icons: I don't think they'll get anywhere with saying Samsung copied their icons because gradients and shapes are NOT owned by Apple or anyone for that matter.

    But as you alluded to, it's the sum total of these things that 'may' make a product so similar to another that it causes confusion in the market. The only way they're going to get anywhere is if Apple can demonstrate that there is confusion in the market: they can't get anywhere on just the design elements alone saying Samsung copied them because the elements themselves are free to be used by anyone, like a steering wheel.

  1. Waragainstsleep

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: 03-20-04

    Well I don't pretend to know if cars have an equivalent to something like FRAND but a car needs certain features to be considered a car, a phone needs certain things to be considered a phone.

    It needs a screen, it needs a battery, it needs two way radio and it needs numerical input. It doesn't need rounded corners, it doesn't need icons (or rather they don't have to be certain colours or styles), it doesn't really need a touchscreen which is 90% of the front of the device etc etc.....

    This is why Samsung are trying to assert that some of their disputed design decisions are just logical to the point of necessary. Its going to be interesting to see what the court is really aiming for here. One might say the market would benefit more from being encouragement to differentiate and therefore innovate. That would be a compelling argument to side with Apple, to protect the companies who do just that and take those risks in doing so from being shamelessly ripped off. Siding with Samsung to avoid the inevitable raft of fairly frivolous design suits that would otherwise invariably follow would be disappointing but ultimately predictable. That said, if courts are charging properly for their time in cases like these, maybe it would be good for the public coffers if those suits did get filed.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    Well I don't pretend to know if cars have an equivalent to something like FRAND but a car needs certain features to be considered a car, a phone needs certain things to be considered a phone.



    Exactly, and Apple doesn't get it. Rounded rectangles... that's what many mobile phones are.

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    It needs a screen, it needs a battery, it needs two way radio and it needs numerical input. It doesn't need rounded corners, it doesn't need icons (or rather they don't have to be certain colours or styles), it doesn't really need a touchscreen which is 90% of the front of the device etc etc.....



    It does indeed need a screen, a battery, a two way radio and numerical input. None of which are owned by Apple or anyone really. You could buy off the shelf parts and make this yourself and not pay a dime in licensing fees to anyone because it's obvious parts of a phone.

    And even if a phone doesn't have to have rounded corners, many phones do. Just because a phone has rounded corners doesn't mean it's copying anyone or that people aren't allowed to make a rounded corner phone. It's absurd to think otherwise or that some company like Apple owns a monopoly on that design.

    And does a phone really need icons and a touchscreen? If it's running Android it sure does. And even if it isn't phones have had icons for YEARS. Years before Apple. Apple does not own some monopoly over icons on a mobile phone. Again, totally absurd to think they do.

    And about the touchscreen. The reason that Samsung's phones have touchscreens is because of the SOFTWARE that they run. The hardware is defined by the software. If you have a problem with a grid of icons and touchscreens, talk to Google, they are the ones who make Android: an iOS-like multi-touch operating system. Like HTC, Google with their Nexus, Sony, and many others, Samsung is simply an OEM for Android. To go after Samsung is confusing and clouding the issue here. It's Google Apple should be focused on with Android. Android is what's defining the hardware. You can't blame OEMs for making hardware for a free mobile operating system that has exploded on the market. If these OEMs could license iOS, I'm certain some of them would. But that's not an option. But Android is.

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    This is why Samsung are trying to assert that some of their disputed design decisions are just logical to the point of necessary. Its going to be interesting to see what the court is really aiming for here. One might say the market would benefit more from being encouragement to differentiate and therefore innovate. That would be a compelling argument to side with Apple, to protect the companies who do just that and take those risks in doing so from being shamelessly ripped off. Siding with Samsung to avoid the inevitable raft of fairly frivolous design suits that would otherwise invariably follow would be disappointing but ultimately predictable. That said, if courts are charging properly for their time in cases like these, maybe it would be good for the public coffers if those suits did get filed.



    Some decent points here.

  1. Waragainstsleep

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: 03-20-04

    Samsung made the choice to use Android though. They made the choice to use a full screen touch screen and change the icons to resemble the iPhone ones. They chose to round the corners and no doubt there are one or two other choices that Apple feels when they are all added together serve the sole purpose of making the Galaxy more closely resemble the look and functionality of the iPhone.

    Apple isn't asserting ownership of anything other than the iPhone design. They aren't claiming ownership of rounded corners or icons, they are claiming ownership of a specific combination of features which make up their design.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    Samsung made the choice to use Android though. They made the choice to use a full screen touch screen and change the icons to resemble the iPhone ones. They chose to round the corners and no doubt there are one or two other choices that Apple feels when they are all added together serve the sole purpose of making the Galaxy more closely resemble the look and functionality of the iPhone.
    Apple isn't asserting ownership of anything other than the iPhone design. They aren't claiming ownership of rounded corners or icons, they are claiming ownership of a specific combination of features which make up their design.



    Sometimes you seem to understand and then you don't.

    Here's where the disconnect is. All these things you mention, yes, even the icons (you can't patent shapes and gradients and hold a monopoly over them) are things that are not patentable by Apple and owned by Apple or really any one person or company. Yes, Apple has a brand to protect and if Samsung is being confused for Apple's brand in the marketplace then there is a case here for that... however...

    Does the sum total of these things make it look like an iPhone? Perhaps. Actually, sure, it does. And you know what? So what! Actually, it's SUPPOSED to look like an iPhone and the iPhone is supposed to look like other phones because you know what? They're phones! A phone is a category of object that is distinct from fruit, automobiles, buildings, etc. These are mobile slate devices. They are supposed to look very similar, just like cars do.

    And then you're going to say no phones looked like the iPhone before the iPhone came out, which is not true. In fact, the iPhone is a large touchscreen in a thin rounded rectangle design. This design was exactly derived from PDAs before it and even other smartphones from years past.

    The reality is you can pile on as many of these "design" things as you want, like a rounded rectangle, touchscreen, etc. and all you get are a bunch of things that are owned by no one. You're free to do it, just like you're free to build cars in your garage with tires, steering wheels, headlights, airbags, seat belts, etc. without infringing on anyone's patent over the design of these things.

    Apple in the end is going down a deadend with this. The higher courts will shred this if they appeal. Imagine if Apple won on the precedent of these design things. The whole industry may end up owing Apple money: Samsung isn't the only ones who make Android smartphones.

    And Apple is not the originator of many of the things it claims to be the originator of.

    Sony P910i pre-iPhone: large touchscreen phone with games and Apps:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15wk3bFZwK0&feature=related

    XDA II 2003, large touchscreen smartphone, rounded rectangle:

    http://st2.gsmarena.com/vv/pics/o2/o2xda2_00.jpg

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Good article on Saumsung lambasting Apple today.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28209-apple-did-not-invent-the-rounded-rectangle

    I like this comment:

    Breaking news. School math book is being banned for having Rectangle and rounded rectangle as a math equation.

  1. Stogieman

    Professional Poster

    Joined: 05-07-00

    About that Whole Samsung Copying Apple Thing…

    http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copycat-2/

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    [QUOTE=Stogieman;4182475][/quote]

    Wow look at that, the same USB cables and close to the same ac adapters.

    Why do all mice have the same USB cables? They all look the same! That's copying!

    It's called a standard.

    Read em' and weep: LG Prada phone came in 2006, before the iPhone:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLOGUQouUI&list=FL23JVhwQXSby1pSmA-gFx0g&feature=mh_lolz

    http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/

    Apple copying Braun:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/files/2011/04/iphone-braun2.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ipod-comp.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/mac-speaker.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/powermac-comp.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/powermac-comp2.jpg

    NEC first laptop 1989, Apple copies them, like several others in the industry leading to the modern laptop:

    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HU8WPuYJX84/SjNRhzhOjaI/AAAAAAAAAVY/VaQJ9mn593I/ultralite-good.jpg

    Nice try, but, uh, no... Apple is just as guilty as charged.

  1. Waragainstsleep

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: 03-20-04

    Yes, I can build a car in my garage and no-one will sue me. I can even build a kit car that looks exactly like a Ferrari but with the guts of an old Ford or something in it. Again, no-one will mind if I drive around in that for years. If I start selling those however, I'd wager that sooner or later I will get some attention from Ferrari or their parent company Fiat (I think). Probably a cease and desist order first, then maybe a lawsuit. The reason being that I have started to make and sell a cheap knock-off of their very expensive product, and we all know that people would buy them because they look like Ferraris and everyone will think they own Ferraris if they buy them.

    I have stolen Ferrari's unpatentable designs and damaged their image though probably not their sales and I would expect to lose in court.

    Its you who doesn't get it. This is not a patent dispute. This is not a design dispute over the design of the phone. Its a design dispute over all models of iPhone and iPad and the Apple and iOS brand. Once again, Apple is might struggle to prove market confusion (unless they have taken some surveys that show it clearly), they are certainly going to struggle if they need to prove that Samsung deliberately set out to copy the iPhone, but the more I list the various aspects and bits of evidence the more I start to think they might actually stand a chance with this apparently sympathetic judge. Everything points to Samsung copying the finer non-essential aspects of the design and the functionality and going after Apple customers specifically.

    What they have done is really not very different from my Ferrari analogy. They have stopped short of explicitly saying "Its an iPhone only cheaper", but thats about it, and they've implied the hell out of it.

  1. BLAZE_MkIV

    Professional Poster

    Joined: 02-23-00

    Let's use the car analogy again. The car makers are very careful about their branding. Compare the vw toureg and the Porsche cayenne. Both compact SUVs, have all the car bits and pieces. Actually share a significant number of pieces in common. You'd never mistake them for each other.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    Read em' and weep: LG Prada phone came in 2006, before the iPhone:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLOGUQouUI&list=FL23JVhwQXSby1pSmA-gFx0g&feature=mh_lolz


    Anybody who seriously thinks that the LG Prada compares to the iPhone has never held/used both.

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    Apple copying Braun:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/files/2011/04/iphone-braun2.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ipod-comp.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/mac-speaker.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/powermac-comp.jpg

    http://drtylndryblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/powermac-comp2.jpg


    Which Braun products were those devices competing with at the time?

    Quoting classic design in tribute thirty and forty years later is rather different than quoting something still on the market and creating a competing product .



    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    NEC first laptop 1989, Apple copies them, like several others in the industry leading to the modern laptop:

    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HU8WPuYJX84/SjNRhzhOjaI/AAAAAAAAAVY/VaQJ9mn593I/ultralite-good.jpg



    Apple's credit is moving the keyboard back and adding a palm rest/pointer control at the front. Nobody else had done that before they did.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by WaragainstsleepView Post

    Yes, I can build a car in my garage and no-one will sue me. I can even build a kit car that looks exactly like a Ferrari but with the guts of an old Ford or something in it. Again, no-one will mind if I drive around in that for years. If I start selling those however, I'd wager that sooner or later I will get some attention from Ferrari or their parent company Fiat (I think). Probably a cease and desist order first, then maybe a lawsuit. The reason being that I have started to make and sell a cheap knock-off of their very expensive product, and we all know that people would buy them because they look like Ferraris and everyone will think they own Ferraris if they buy them.
    I have stolen Ferrari's unpatentable designs and damaged their image though probably not their sales and I would expect to lose in court.
    Its you who doesn't get it. This is not a patent dispute. This is not a design dispute over the design of the phone. Its a design dispute over all models of iPhone and iPad and the Apple and iOS brand. Once again, Apple is might struggle to prove market confusion (unless they have taken some surveys that show it clearly), they are certainly going to struggle if they need to prove that Samsung deliberately set out to copy the iPhone, but the more I list the various aspects and bits of evidence the more I start to think they might actually stand a chance with this apparently sympathetic judge. Everything points to Samsung copying the finer non-essential aspects of the design and the functionality and going after Apple customers specifically.
    What they have done is really not very different from my Ferrari analogy. They have stopped short of explicitly saying "Its an iPhone only cheaper", but thats about it, and they've implied the hell out of it.



    Wow this is a lot of rambling. What you and Apple claim they own. What you think is part of their brand and defensible: most of it isn't. Anyone is free to design and sell a rounded rectangle phone with a touchscreen and grid of icons.

    LG Prada came before the iPhone full stop.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIVView Post

    Let's use the car analogy again. The car makers are very careful about their branding. Compare the vw toureg and the Porsche cayenne. Both compact SUVs, have all the car bits and pieces. Actually share a significant number of pieces in common. You'd never mistake them for each other.



    And what exactly is Samsung infringing on Apple? What part of their brand? Lay it out.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Adesso Xtream S3B Bluetooth speaker

Finding a speaker purpose-built for a specific need is challenging. Even when a Bluetooth speaker can be paired with a mobile device, ...

JBL Synchros E40BT headphones

For all the different configurations of headphones on the market, it's always a tough choice for buyers to get something that is just ...

Razer Taipan mouse

The list of gaming devices is growing larger with each passing day. A large number of companies have entered the gaming input arena, a ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News