Originally Posted by NewsPoster

According to a Samsung survey conducted at Best Buy locations in 2011 and released in the smartphone trial with Apple today, Apple's claims of customers returning Samsung products because the customer thought it was an iPad may be in doubt. The survey of Galaxy Tab returners found that market confusion accounted for only nine percent of returns, with the remainder for technical issues or device failures.

The study was conducted at 30 Best Buy stores in New York, Los Angeles, and Florida to determine the reasons for return. Browser crashes, lack of screen sensitivity, and Wi-Fi connectivity issues accounted for 25 percent of the returns. Screen lag, short battery life, and sync issues accounted for another 17 percent. The Honeycomb operating system learning curve caused ten percent of the returns, with nine percent returning the device after mistakenly thinking they were buying an iPad.
The survey only addressed the stated reasons for the return, and was not backed up with analysis of the returned unit. Additionally, what customers replaced the Galaxy Tab with after the return and credit was not tracked. Apple was relying on "Samsung's own documents, which tell an unambiguous story" to prove Apple's claims of market confusion, and to some extent, this survey does accomplish that, with one customer in 11 returning the tablet for no other reason than it wasn't an iPad. Whether those customers had been truly confused by the branding or merely misunderstood 'iPad' to be a generic term for any tablet is not made clear in Samsung's analysis.
Apple's suit began against Samsung last year for violation of several patents in the Korean manufacturer's Android devices, including the frequently referenced "data tapping" patent, that converts phone numbers and URLs embedded in a text to contextually be used as application-specific links. Samsung has lost every one of its 12 summary judgement requests, and Apple has won one of its three requests. Opening arguments and initial witnesses have been called, with the trial scheduled to resume tomorrow in California.

Oh Apple. Susan Kare and now this. This trial is becoming embarassing.

So not only did they return them for not being iPads, they returned them for being iPads that didn't work right.

embarrassing for who...you?

Obviously, Apple's management team who has been there for the past 15 years and helped to create one of the worlds most innovative companies in the past 50 years, is not embarrassed to stand up to the thieves over at Samsung and finally say enough is enough, stop blatantly copying our work... come up with your own unique designs, unique UI and patents.

Since when is it embarrassing to stand up for your own blood, sweat and tears?

Blaze SHOULD be embarrassed at his repeated attempts to win us over to his non-inventive, irritating way of pondering (I will not say "thinking.") Get off your soapbox man you are on the wrong site.
If you can't tell what copying someone else's stuff means by now you are as ignorant as you are trying to make Apple out to be.

9 out of every 100 people thought it was an iPad they were buying? Holy crap. That's a lot. Curious to see how Samsung can wiggle out of that.

Originally Posted by jr704

embarrassing for who...you?
Obviously, Apple's management team who has been there for the past 15 years and helped to create one of the worlds most innovative companies in the past 50 years, is not embarrassed to stand up to the thieves over at Samsung and finally say enough is enough, stop blatantly copying our work... come up with your own unique designs, unique UI and patents.
Since when is it embarrassing to stand up for your own blood, sweat and tears?

Because they're grasping at straws. Everything they bring up in court is weak at best. Schiller pounding his fist, "They copied us damnit!" with no real evidence. Susan Kare, an old washed up designer saying that it looks like Samsung copied Apple. What does she really know, anyway? Oh, I know, that she designed some icons in 1983 that were themselves ripped off from Xerox.

And instead of there being "overwhelming" data showing confusion in the market, the best Apple can come up with is some data from Best Buy showing 1 out of every 11 returns on Galaxys are due to the customer being confused about the product: between Apple and Samsung.

As someone already pointed out, are many of these people telling the truth, or did they know they were buying an Android device to try it and made an excuse when they returned it because they didn't like Android and went to an iOS device? That they just bought them knowingly and the reason is to try them out and then return them? It's literally not believable that a human being buying an Android device from Samsung, with Samsung written on the box and on the device didn't know it wasn't an Apple product. It's in fact absurd. It's more believable that these are excuses and that people make all kinds of excuses when they return things to stores.

Originally Posted by Craig Ciccone

9 out of every 100 people thought it was an iPad they were buying? Holy crap. That's a lot. Curious to see how Samsung can wiggle out of that.

How many people returned iPhones and iPads thinking they were Samsung products?

And see my post above. In other words, this data is not reliable because there are many questions that need to be answered, which includes follow up interviews with the people returning the products.

And you know what's even more screwed up? The excuse people use saying they thought they were Apple products could be the parasite of the media within these people. People reading about Samsung copying Apple. Fanboy sites. Then they go and buy the phone with no real intention of keeping it just to test it out and vomit up something the media has been pushing.

Originally Posted by freudling


How many people returned iPhones and iPads thinking they were Samsung products?

You want to talk about grasping at straws???

@ freudling:

How much are you being paid to troll MacNN with your BS?

Originally Posted by chefpastry

@ freudling:
How much are you being paid to troll MacNN with your BS?

Really? You actually condone what Apple is doing? You think Apple actually has any semblance of a case?

This case is absurd and I've lost some respect for Apple over it. They don't have a case. They're whining.

My advice to them: shut up and innovate and stop focusing your energy on this. Get back to making products. This case will get Apple nowhere but backwards. It's a distraction: a money sucking operation and Samsung will win.

I'm a total Apple guy so no, I'm not trolling. I'm calling the facts. Apple going after things like a rounded rectangle is the most ridiculous thing I've almost ever heard.

LG Prada from 2006: Enough said guys, pack it up and go home. It's done.

http://allthingsd.com/20120731/live-samsung-making-its-case-in-landmark-apple-trial/

Rounded rectangle tablets from the 90s and early 2000s, you don't say?

http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

The suit is about Samsung copying Apple's design (and therefore significant R&D because it became a successfull 'look') and the very best examples of this are the before and after photos.

Just go here and if you don't think they're all trying to look like the iPad (at a cheaper price point) then you are just plain delusional.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/

There was no real tablet market before the iPad despite MS's best attempts. The reasons for it's success as has often been touted, are the slick design, the responsive interface and the intuitive feel. If a child with a learning disorder can pick up an iPad and start to use it - where they had difficulty interacting with any device before (and there's ample evidence out there including in Apple's own marketing material) - then the device works extremely well. Technology should not obstruct a person's ability to interact, it should enhance it.

Just look at the pics and tell me that Samsung didn't slavishly copy Apple's design work. They had any of the other design choices pre iPad and a gazillion more on top, but they chose to copy the most successful one to the degree that it does cause confusion at first glance.

Do you think BMW or Mercedes would put up with this? I know for a fact they won't.

Originally Posted by baggy_pants

The suit is about Samsung copying Apple's design (and therefore significant R&D because it became a successfull 'look') and the very best examples of this are the before and after photos.
Just go here and if you don't think they're all trying to look like the iPad (at a cheaper price point) then you are just plain delusional.
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/
There was no real tablet market before the iPad despite MS's best attempts. The reasons for it's success as has often been touted, are the slick design, the responsive interface and the intuitive feel. If a child with a learning disorder can pick up an iPad and start to use it - where they had difficulty interacting with any device before (and there's ample evidence out there including in Apple's own marketing material) - then the device works extremely well. Technology should not obstruct a person's ability to interact, it should enhance it.
Just look at the pics and tell me that Samsung didn't slavishly copy Apple's design work. They had any of the other design choices pre iPad and a gazillion more on top, but they chose to copy the most successful one to the degree that it does cause confusion at first glance.
Do you think BMW or Mercedes would put up with this? I know for a fact they won't.

Just look at the following and say that Apple didn't slavishly copy (read MacDailyNews much?) Braun, HP, and others:

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

1994 tablet concept in detail introduced in the trial:

http://www.cultofmac.com/157747/this-tablet-from-1994-is-hurting-apples-defense-against-samsung-video/

Rounded rectangle tablet! Bwahahahaha.

Originally Posted by freudling

Really? You actually condone what Apple is doing? You think Apple actually has any semblance of a case?

I have to point out that they have managed to convince not one but several judges -- several times over -- that they do. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've yet to see any serious legal scholar say that they don't have a case.

But I think the problem is that you're missing the bigger picture:

1. Once Apple wins a patent, just like a trademark, they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to enforce that patent or they lose the rights to it. So if they have a patent on rounded triangles (they don't), you have to get the patent invalided, otherwise Apple is OBLIGATED to enforce it. Don't like it? Blame the broken patent system, not Apple.

2. I'd love to make a bet with you on the outcome of this. Have you looked at Apple's track record against Samsung so far? It's a fairly strong indication of what's likely to happen.

3. You can point to ANY single piece of Apple evidence and call it weak all you like, but the jury is looking at a bigger overall picture than you are. And the picture shows a company that took a SHARP left turn after the iPhone came out, and then went HARDCORE on the copying when the iPad came out. That doesn't guarantee a win, but seriously if you can't see that you're simply blind.

4. Actual quote from actual Samsung email: "'Let's make something like the iPhone' is what I'm hearing." That's from the CEO, btw.

5. Apple isn't just going after Samsung for stealing their patents, it's firing a warning shot to the whole industry: http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/08/07/apples-motivation-for-suing-samsung/

6. Finally, you need to read this, and as much of the 144-page Samsung document that's included in this report as you can: http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Then come back to me and try to tell me Samsung isn't copying Apple.

@ freudling, the first tiny fragment of a flaw in your argument must be that the best legal minds spanning the globe couldn't find and divulge this information in so compelling a manner as to make the entire lawsuit go away.

But you persist. Having wasted enough time going through your links, there's this:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/apple_strikes_back_at_samsung_with_2005_iphone_prototype_design.html

As for braun, any design student knows that Apple took its cues from the minimalist design, but it does not replicate or slavishly copy them, design does not work that way.

chas_m made enough relevant points for me to stop waffling.

You do understand Apple's manufacturing partners steal it's R&D when they think it suits, right? In Asia, culturally speaking, copying is not considered a crime, you understand that also, right? That's why copyright is such a huge issue from a western ideology though not over there.

@ freudling: It appears that it may be time to peddle your excretions elsewhere because it's becoming abundantly clear that no one is buying it here.

Really? You actually condone what Apple is doing? You think Apple actually has any semblance of a case? This case is absurd and I've lost some respect for Apple over it.

Read more: http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/08/07/report.could.bolster.or.hinder.apples.claims.by.interpretation/#ixzz22xdQ4IBv

Absolutely. And since your not an Apple fan, or likely customer, just stop complaining about it and held over to SamsungNN (or whatever) to sing your praises and slam Apple. Really, move on with your trolling!

Whose this freudling cat?! No case...really?

That only 9 percent thought that they bought an iPad is less about Apple's failure to show their point than it is to the poor quality of the Samsung device. I mean that nearly 90% of the people returned it because it's a crappy device has no bearing on whether it was an iPad or not...just that it's a crappy device! Nice job, Samsung...way to show a positive as a negative.

This also implies that Samsung, by copying, had little R&D to test their device and thusly insure a positive customer experience. If you didn't create it, then you don't know how to fix!!

/

Originally Posted by chas_m


I have to point out that they have managed to convince not one but several judges -- several times over -- that they do. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've yet to see any serious legal scholar say that they don't have a case.
But I think the problem is that you're missing the bigger picture:
1. Once Apple wins a patent, just like a trademark, they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to enforce that patent or they lose the rights to it. So if they have a patent on rounded triangles (they don't), you have to get the patent invalided, otherwise Apple is OBLIGATED to enforce it. Don't like it? Blame the broken patent system, not Apple.

This is great. But what does it really have to do with most of Apple's whining about design? You just said it, they don't actually have a design patent over a rounded rectangle yet they're arguing in court like they do. Like nobody is allowed to use that.

You know what? Apple tried. And they were, for the most part, shot down over design patents related to their tablet and iPhone.

But the district court denied a preliminary injunction because there were substantial questions about the validity of the D'889 patent given the prior art references. According to the court, the broad, simple design created basically the same visual impression as a prototype tablet developed in 1994 by Roger Fidler. The Fidler tablet lacked a “flat glass-like surface,” but the court found that didn’t “detract from the fact that the ‘overall visual impression’ created by the D'889 patent is the same as the 1994 Fidler[ ] tablet.”

And the flat glass screen showed up in the 2002 Hewlett–Packard Compaq Tablet TC1000.

http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

Originally Posted by chas_m

2. I'd love to make a bet with you on the outcome of this. Have you looked at Apple's track record against Samsung so far? It's a fairly strong indication of what's likely to happen.

I'll bet you $20,000 Apple loses. And this bet is for real. Paypal. This case ends when no appeals are left. That's the condition. Care to take it?

Originally Posted by chas_m

3. You can point to ANY single piece of Apple evidence and call it weak all you like, but the jury is looking at a bigger overall picture than you are. And the picture shows a company that took a SHARP left turn after the iPhone came out, and then went HARDCORE on the copying when the iPad came out. That doesn't guarantee a win, but seriously if you can't see that you're simply blind.

Apple WAS NOT first with the rounded rectangle touchscreen phone, LG was with the Prada:

http://www3.pcmag.com/media/images/178508-lg-prada-ke850.jpg?thumb=y

And Apple was NOT the first with a rounded rectangle tablet. HP had one in 2002, and there are many widely publicized other ones that were on the market, as well as in promo videos and in film. Apple is NOT the originator of this design.

Originally Posted by chas_m

4. Actual quote from actual Samsung email: "'Let's make something like the iPhone' is what I'm hearing." That's from the CEO, btw.

And so what? So you want to compete with someone? Nothing here implies any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by chas_m

5. Apple isn't just going after Samsung for stealing their patents, it's firing a warning shot to the whole industry: http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/08/07/apples-motivation-for-suing-samsung/

Great, and the industry should fire a warning shot back at it. You know what Apple? No more radio for you. No more camera on your phones. No more touchscreen panels. No more rounded rectangle. No more chips from Samsung. No more sending pictures by text message. On and on... all of which were not invented by Apple. And no more using the iconic phone icon because you think you own it.

Originally Posted by chas_m

6. Finally, you need to read this, and as much of the 144-page Samsung document that's included in this report as you can: http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/
Then come back to me and try to tell me Samsung isn't copying Apple.

Wow, you mean people pay attention to the competition? You don't say.

You should come into my business and see what we do. I guess we're so guilty by analyzing the competition and trying to make better products that we should be jailed. Apple also has been demonstrated in court to have taken competitors' cell phones and analyzed them, and even taken them apart and analyzed the designs of the circuits, etc. Everyone does this and this is not illegal or wrong.

Originally Posted by baggy_pants

@ freudling, the first tiny fragment of a flaw in your argument must be that the best legal minds spanning the globe couldn't find and divulge this information in so compelling a manner as to make the entire lawsuit go away.
But you persist. Having wasted enough time going through your links, there's this:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/apple_strikes_back_at_samsung_with_2005_iphone_prototype_design.html
As for braun, any design student knows that Apple took its cues from the minimalist design, but it does not replicate or slavishly copy them, design does not work that way.
chas_m made enough relevant points for me to stop waffling.
You do understand Apple's manufacturing partners steal it's R&D when they think it suits, right? In Asia, culturally speaking, copying is not considered a crime, you understand that also, right? That's why copyright is such a huge issue from a western ideology though not over there.

You have said effectively ZERO in this post. All it is is subjective judgements with nothing to back it up.

The LG Prada phone in 2006 came before the iPhone. This is a fact and this is indisputable.

Apple copied over the use of a camera on a cell phone.

Apple copied those with rounded rectangle tablets before them.

Apple slavishly copied Braun, for instance, with its calculator App. Dieter Rams lead Braun designer was interviewed over the copying. "No they didn't freudling, this can't be so!!! Design does not work that way!"

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

Originally Posted by freudling


This is great. But what does it really have to do with most of Apple's whining about design? You just said it, they don't actually have a design patent over a rounded rectangle yet they're arguing in court like they do. Like nobody is allowed to use that.
You know what? Apple tried. And they were, for the most part, shot down over design patents related to their tablet and iPhone.
But the district court denied a preliminary injunction because there were substantial questions about the validity of the D'889 patent given the prior art references. According to the court, the broad, simple design created basically the same visual impression as a prototype tablet developed in 1994 by Roger Fidler. The Fidler tablet lacked a “flat glass-like surface,” but the court found that didn’t “detract from the fact that the ‘overall visual impression’ created by the D'889 patent is the same as the 1994 Fidler[ ] tablet.”
And the flat glass screen showed up in the 2002 Hewlett–Packard Compaq Tablet TC1000.
http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html
I'll bet you $20,000 Apple loses. And this bet is for real. Paypal. This case ends when no appeals are left. That's the condition. Care to take it?
Apple WAS NOT first with the rounded rectangle touchscreen phone, LG was with the Prada:
http://www3.pcmag.com/media/images/178508-lg-prada-ke850.jpg?thumb=y
And Apple was NOT the first with a rounded rectangle tablet. HP had one in 2002, and there are many widely publicized other ones that were on the market, as well as in promo videos and in film. Apple is NOT the originator of this design.
And so what? So you want to compete with someone? Nothing here implies any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Great, and the industry should fire a warning shot back at it. You know what Apple? No more radio for you. No more camera on your phones. No more touchscreen panels. No more rounded rectangle. No more chips from Samsung. No more sending pictures by text message. On and on... all of which were not invented by Apple. And no more using the iconic phone icon because you think you own it.
Wow, you mean people pay attention to the competition? You don't say.
You should come into my business and see what we do. I guess we're so guilty by analyzing the competition and trying to make better products that we should be jailed. Apple also has been demonstrated in court to have taken competitors' cell phones and analyzed them, and even taken them apart and analyzed the designs of the circuits, etc. Everyone does this and this is not illegal or wrong.

Leave troll, leave.

freudling, you are doing a terrible job shilling for Samsung/Google here. I suggest that you stop before you make a fool of yourself any further. Recent documents obtained from Samsung show how Samsung employees were explicitly told to make the UI of the Samsung S series look more like the iPhone UI from the dialer to the icons on the launcher screen.

See this article:
http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

I think we have the smoking gun folks. Samsung has been caught copying slavishly.

Wow.

That there is in fact a problem.

Apple lost the lawsuit against Microsoft in 1994 in part because the court ruled at the time that the GENERAL look and feel couldn't be proven to infringe, so they broke down the case into the individual elements, which were just dissimilar enough to each be deemed not infringing on their own.

If the court follows similar procedure in this case, this document proves that Samsung set out not only to imitate the general look and feel, but also to specifically make individual elements look and work like Apple's.