# Apple sues Samsung for skanking iPhone design!



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 18, 2011)

So it seems Apple's response to being trounced by Android is to sue it's competitors out of the market. That said when I first saw the Samsung I did actually wonder how they got away with ripping off the iPhone without the merest peeps of litigation..!









> The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple has sued Samsung Electronics for copying "the look and feel" of its iPad tablet and iPhone smartphone. This relates to the Samsung Galaxy S 4G, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the iPhone 3G / 3GS models, and the slightly less obvious Epic 4G, Nexus S, and Galaxy Tab (presumably the older 7-inch model, since the newer ones aren't out yet) devices. The claim for intellectual property infringement is phrased as follows:
> 
> _"Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products."_


----------



## TruXta (Apr 18, 2011)

The whole fucking industry revolves around litigation. I saw a chart once where they linked all the major players through their suits against each other - Apple and Sun was at the centre I believe.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

It looks as much like the iPhone as the iPhone looks like the Sony Clie.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 18, 2011)

That is quite a similar looking phone to be fair. The rest of the patent stuff is tenuous at best.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The whole fucking industry revolves around litigation. I saw a chart once where they linked all the major players through their suits against each other - Apple and Sun was at the centre I believe.


 
Heh I'd like to see that!


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

Looking at the tech blogs, an awful lot of user comments seem to be thoroughly unsympathetic to Apple's action. 

Mind you, if they're successful, HP/Palm might want to join in the party, seeing as they hold patents for many basic smartphone functions that appear to have been infringed upon by Apple.

Personally, I think all this patent stuff fucking stinks.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh I'd like to see that!


Here: http://www.wirefresh.com/legal-tech-wars-whos-suing-who-major-court-cases-in-the-telecoms-world/


----------



## Sunray (Apr 18, 2011)

I would like to think that if I came up with a nice idea that people would like to use, it would be protected somehow.

I also think that what constitutes a good idea has been bastardised to the point of incomprehension.  

They are similar looking but does that amount to being the same?  I'm not so sure? Its clearly a bit of a rip, but 16 icons does not make an OS.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 18, 2011)

editor said:


> Here: http://www.wirefresh.com/legal-tech-wars-whos-suing-who-major-court-cases-in-the-telecoms-world/


 
Cheers. Wow that's something else...


----------



## TruXta (Apr 18, 2011)

My memory was well off with who was who in that chart.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Sunray said:


> I would like to think that if I came up with a nice idea that people would like to use, it would be protected somehow.
> 
> I also think that what constitutes a good idea has been bastardised to the point of incomprehension.
> 
> They are similar looking but does that amount to being the same?  I'm not so sure? Its clearly a bit of a rip, but 16 icons does not make an OS.


Going by Apple's own argument, you could probably argue that the iPhone ripped off Palm. After all, Palm's homescreen had icons arranged in horizontal rows, a dialler screen with links to contacts/calls, SMS conversations etc etc.

Even Sony could get in with a shout, because their Clie had a black body, curved edges and  a large glass front. It's all daft.


----------



## Sunray (Apr 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The whole fucking industry revolves around litigation. I saw a chart once where they linked all the major players through their suits against each other - Apple and Sun was at the centre I believe.



The thing about Apple, Sun (defunct) and Sony was that they made things.  Things that people wanted to use because they collaborated to set standards.  I think that people who take risks, risks that cost millions, should be at least able to recoup the cash.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Sunray said:


> The thing about Apple, Sun (defunct) and Sony was that they made things.  Things that people wanted to use because they collaborated to set standards.  I think that people who take risks, risks that cost millions, should be at least able to recoup the cash.


The top of the range Samsung handsets are pretty much cutting edge these days.


----------



## Sunray (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Going by Apple's own argument, you could probably argue that the iPhone ripped off Palm. After all, Palm's homescreen had icons arranged in horizontal rows, a dialler screen with links to contacts/calls, SMS conversations etc etc.
> 
> Even Sony could get in with a shout, because their Clie had a black body, curved edges and  a large glass front.


 
Exactly, its just a reasonable way to display stuff and its bollox IMO.

But Apple have innovated in this area, so I can see their point, where do they draw the line?  I'm not sure that its easy to say but with $30,000,000,000 in the bank, the lawyers probably cost less than the interest.


----------



## Sunray (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> The top of the range Samsung handsets are pretty much cutting edge these days.



Cutting edge != Innovation.  Innovation is Firewire, which is a Sony/Apple/Sun invention. If you include it you pay them $1 or something.  Well you pay Apple/Sony/Oracle these days.  Oracle ffs, like they take risks.  They are just out to fuck with my head but lets not go there.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Wasn't their innovation more a case of pulling together all the stuff that was already around and tying it together onto a gloriously slick, finger-friendly interface? I'm finding it hard to think of any single feature that the iPhone 1 actually invented on its own when it launched.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Sunray said:


> Cutting edge != Innovation.  Innovation is Firewire, which is a Sony/Apple/Sun invention. If you include it you pay them $1 or something.  Well you pay Apple/Sony/Oracle these days.  Oracle ffs, like they take risks.  They are just out to fuck with my head but lets not go there.


At the risk of going off topic, I think it's fair to say that Firewire is still fairly niche for most consumers. I haven't got a single device using Firewire.


----------



## Sunray (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Wasn't their innovation more a case of pulling together all the stuff that was already around and tying it together onto a gloriously slick, finger-friendly interface? I'm finding it hard to think of any single feature that the iPhone 1 actually invented on its own when it launched.



Apart from the fully fledged mobile browser with multi touch and physics scrolling.  Not a lot.  

The iPhone 1 was more than a sum of its parts.  It did what nothing else on the market did and did it with a level polish that at the time was unprecedented.


----------



## Sunray (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> At the risk of going off topic, I think it's fair to say that Firewire is still fairly niche for most consumers. I haven't got a single device using Firewire.


 
I do, but it wasn't designed with you in mind, but it did 400Mbs at a time when that was truly ridiculous levels of performance (early 90's).  Its a great bit of tech all round that cost money to get working and to standardise.  The people that developed it were some of the industries brightest people.   These people do not come cheap.

Like I say, 16 icons do not make an OS, so in my mind its all bollox, but I also think it very hard to define where the line is to be drawn.  What constitutes plagiarism is incredibly hard to define.   Apple clearly feel its time to pay the lawyers.


----------



## kained&able (Apr 19, 2011)

Theres another thread on here, about apple managing to not get sues for nicking the an effect for the arrows and stuff.

I said this was a good thing as the litigation was stupid and then they go and try and pull this shit. Cunts. My mistake for forgetting that.

dave


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Sunray said:


> Like I say, 16 icons do not make an OS, so in my mind its all bollox, but I also think it very hard to define where the line is to be drawn.  What constitutes plagiarism is incredibly hard to define.   Apple clearly feel its time to pay the lawyers.


And an awful lot of people believe that this line is only being drawn now because of the runaway success of Android. I don't think this action is doing Apple any favours at all. It looks a bit, well, desperate.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 19, 2011)

Apple don't exactly need any favours, though. As Truxta said, it's just another lawsuit in the web and will mean very little to the average consumer


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2011)




----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


>


Now that is priceless and in a normal world, the judge would throw out Apple's claim straight away as a result.



Crispy said:


> Apple don't exactly need any favours, though. As Truxta said, it's just another lawsuit in the web and will mean very little to the average consumer


It will when they have to pay more for their phone because of the legal bills being ratcheted up by hotshot lawyers. We all pay for this shit. We fund it.


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2011)

For clarification, I don't agree with that graphic entirely, but it does illustrate the point that design within the smartphone sector is fairly limited, and that this is probably more due to limited form factors being agreeable rather than a lack of initiative from designers.


----------



## grit (Apr 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> For clarification, I don't agree with that graphic entirely, but it does illustrate the point that design within the smartphone sector is fairly limited, and that this is probably more due to limited form factors being agreeable rather than a lack of initiative from designers.


 
this, and as usual patent litigation makes a mockery of things.


----------



## dlx1 (Apr 19, 2011)




----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2011)

What's the one on the right?


----------



## grit (Apr 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> What's the one on the right?


 
Some cheap Chinese knock off I'd imagine.


----------



## kained&able (Apr 19, 2011)

What i wanna know is are walkers going to sue all the other crisp manufacturers that have their ready salted flavour in a red packet. Surely about the same level.

dave


----------



## Gromit (Apr 19, 2011)

I sueing every brand with an M in their name as my name had an M it in first.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Wasn't their innovation more a case of pulling together all the stuff that was already around and tying it together onto a gloriously slick, finger-friendly interface? I'm finding it hard to think of any single feature that the iPhone 1 actually invented on its own when it launched.



Any innovation does this to an extent... It's whether your using technology that is out of patent, how you integrate it etc. Obviously having a shit-hot patents team that can snap up innovations from smaller companies or tell you how close to the wind you're sailing wrt your competitors helps a lot too.



editor said:


> Now that is priceless and in a normal world, the judge would throw out Apple's claim straight away as a result.
> 
> It will when they have to pay more for their phone because of the legal bills being ratcheted up by hotshot lawyers. We all pay for this shit. We fund it.



Not true at all, it depends entirely on when the patents were filed - could just as easily end with Samsung facing charges of industrial espionage. The patent system is a nightmare, as are most areas of copyright/design right/Trademark etc law... Tbh though it's just a facet of capitalist society and there aren't any real alternatives.


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

Samsung make the chips that power the iPhone and iPad. This is just lawyers being lawyers. ie: twats.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> Not true at all, it depends entirely on when the patents were filed - could just as easily end with Samsung facing charges of industrial espionage. The patent system is a nightmare, as are most areas of copyright/design right/Trademark etc law... Tbh though it's just a facet of capitalist society and there aren't any real alternatives.


But the Sony Clie had a very similar design back in 2004 - the point being that there's only so much 'design' you can put into a gadget that size. Apple claiming for 'curved corners' is just daft.


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

The main thrust of Apple's argument seems to be rounded corners on app buttons. Which is pathetic.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> But the Sony Clie had a very similar design back in 2004 - the point being that there's only so much 'design' you can put into a gadget that size. Apple claiming for 'curved corners' is just daft.



It depends exactly where they're claiming the infringements are; the form factor is similar but the overall design differs in quite a few respects... The buttons on the clie are located on the bottom and there are 5 of them, it has that integrated cover type thing, the interface is certainly different etc... It also depends on which areas Sony filed patents for. 

You have to admit that there a few aspects of Samsung's design that are very close to apple's, the location of the main button, the border, the layout of icons on their interface etc. Again, it depends where Apple holds patents... Presumably you can access them somehow, might have a dig around later.


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


>


 
Release dates are irrelevant - Apple are suing under their design patents and what matters is whether the filing date (or more accurately the priority date) of the design patent predates the date on which Samsung published (i.e. launched) its design.


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

Winot said:


> Release dates are irrelevant - Apple are suing under their design patents and what matters is whether the filing date (or more accurately the priority date) of the design patent predates the date on which Samsung published (i.e. launched) its design.


Not true. If previous work can be cited then the patent can be invalidated.


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

Sunray said:


> I would like to think that if I came up with a nice idea that people would like to use, it would be protected somehow.
> 
> I also think that what constitutes a good idea has been bastardised to the point of incomprehension.
> 
> They are similar looking but does that amount to being the same?  I'm not so sure? Its clearly a bit of a rip, but 16 icons does not make an OS.



You're right to focus on the "is it similar looking" issue.  This legal claim is nothing to do with the OS.  It's a claim of infringement of a design patent, so forget the way it works - it's the way it looks that's key.


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

magneze said:


> Not true. If previous work can be cited then the patent can be invalidated.


 
Only in interference proceedings, and only in the US under the first to invent rule.  What I said is accurate - the fact that Samsung released before Apple is irrelevant.


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> For clarification, I don't agree with that graphic entirely, but it does illustrate the point that design within the smartphone sector is fairly limited, and that this is probably more due to limited form factors being agreeable rather than a lack of initiative from designers.


 
I don't know very much about how US design patent infringement works, but in the UK the measure of "how close is too close" for design infringement is dependent upon the degree of 'design freedom' a designer has.  

In other words, for an article which can look pretty much however you want it to (e.g. a light fitting) you don't need to be very close to infringe, but for an article for which the designer is more constrained, small differences in design in a competing product are more likely to result in a finding of non-infringement.


----------



## longdog (Apr 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Apple don't exactly need any favours, though. As Truxta said, it's just another lawsuit in the web and will mean very little to the average consumer


 
I'm not sure that's true.

There are a lot of people like me who wouldn't buy Apple products (even if we could afford them) because of their litigious nature and their tendency towards controlling the way their customers use their products after they've bought them.

I'll admit the iPad is a nice bit of kit but if I'm ever in the market for a tablet I'll chose one that allows me to determine what applications I run on it not just the ones the App Store thinks I should be allowed to use.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

Here's the filing for this. From this rather in depth and interesting write up about it...



> Apple sued Samsung yesterday, the latest in a long line of IP lawsuits against Android device manufacturers. (See: Apple v. HTC, Apple v. Motorola, Microsoft v. Motorola, Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble.) The case is remarkable for several reasons, not least because Samsung is one of Apple’s critical component suppliers: the Korean giant manufactures everything from DRAM and SSDs for MacBook Pros to the A4 and A5 processors in the iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV, and iPad. That relationship doesn’t seem to have softened Apple’s tone; the company’s complaint bluntly says “Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights.” Oh boy.
> 
> The immediate takeaway is exactly as Florian Mueller tweeted: Apple isn’t afraid to sue anyone when it comes to protecting its IP. You might also surmise that Apple demanded Samsung stop infringing its IP or pay a royalty and Samsung refused; a filed complaint is generally just evidence that more cordial negotiations failed. But that’s the easy reaction to the simple fact of Apple suing Samsung. The real dirt is in the complaint itself, which was filed on the 15th and made public today. It’s actually quite interesting, both because of the claims themselves and their structure — this lawsuit is as much about TouchWiz and Samsung’s penchant for lifting design elements as it is about the core of Android. We’ve got a copy, which you can download right here — grab it and follow along after the break.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

Wow reading through the filing above (all 373 pages of it!) Apple are really going for it, they're not just alleging icon style theft or design of hardware (not just curved corners but having a black bezel too), they're going after Samsung on packaging as well. This really is a clear attempt at screwing up Android by attacking what appears to be the weakest chink in the chain. Looks like this will be a massive court case lasting years if it goes ahead, and if Apple wins will have real implications for consumer choice in the smartphone and tablet markets.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

And here's the inevitable counter claim. Well done, Apple.



> Samsung Electronics said Tuesday it would take counter-action against Apple after the US firm filed suit alleging that the South Korean giant copied its smartphones and tablet computers.
> 
> Apple's lawsuit claims Samsung's mobile phones and Galaxy Tab imitated the iPhone and the iPad.
> "Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property," the South Korean firm said in a statement.
> ...


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> This really is a clear attempt at screwing up Android by attacking what appears to be the weakest chink in the chain. Looks like this will be a massive court case lasting years if it goes ahead, and if Apple wins will have real implications for consumer choice in the smartphone and tablet markets.


That's the way Apple like to work these days. They tried it on HTC last year.

One thing's for sure: the consumer isn't going to benefit from all this bullshit.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> And here's the inevitable counter claim. Well done, Apple.


 
Yep, saw that, really don't know what Apple will do if Samsung pulls the plug on the components it sells to them...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> That's the way Apple like to work these days. They tried it on HTC last year.
> 
> One thing's for sure: the consumer isn't going to benefit from all this bullshit.


 
Indeed, this kind of corporate bullying is going to become more and more regularly as these new markets develop I reckon...


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep, saw that, really don't know what Apple will do if Samsung pulls the plug on the components it sells to them...


 
It's presumably a massive market for them... Also have to remember that a massive conglomerate like Samsung has a lot of internal pressures; the finance guys in chip manufacture may be asking what the design guys were thinking (only scaled up to a company with 150,000+ employees). There will doubtless be bluster and a presentation of a unified policy etc, but I doubt they'd drop Apple in a hurry.



> Indeed, this kind of corporate bullying is going to become more and more regularly as these new markets develop I reckon...



It's not like Samsung is some tiny David standing up to a goliath, it's the world's largest electronics company... In many ways this is more a case of Apple hanging on to various things that make their device unique, and therefore make their business model tenable.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> It's not like Samsung is some tiny David standing up to a goliath, it's the world's largest electronics company... In many ways this is more a case of Apple hanging on to various things that make their device unique, and therefore make their business model tenable.


If all they've got to hang on to is rounded icons and rounded corners, then perhaps they might want to consider giving things a boost in the innovation department.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> It's presumably a massive market for them... Also have to remember that a massive conglomerate like Samsung has a lot of internal pressures; the finance guys in chip manufacture may be asking what the design guys were thinking (only scaled up to a company with 150,000+ employees). There will doubtless be bluster and a presentation of a unified policy etc, but I doubt they'd drop Apple in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like Samsung is some tiny David standing up to a goliath, it's the world's largest electronics company... In many ways this is more a case of Apple hanging on to various things that make their device unique, and therefore make their business model tenable.


 
Indeed but they're both huge corporations, does anyone really believe Samsung wouldn't be doing the same if things were reversed?


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

e2a Editor: They have a lot more than that to hang it on... Read the article KE linked to, there's a fuck of a lot. I know we often get into apple vs other debates here, but they have every right (indeed they have a duty to their shareholders) to protect their IP, and Samsung do seem to have stretched them pretty far.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Indeed but they're both huge corporations, does anyone really believe Samsung wouldn't be doing the same if things were reversed?


I think it's fair to say that Apple is easily one of the most litigious electronics companies on the planet. I can think of at least FOUR high level cases they've launched in recent months (Amazon, HTC, Samsung, Nokia), but I'm struggling to recall any recent high profile Samsung ones.

Apple's patent trolling attempts to ban the importing of HTC Android smartphones and a number of Nokia devices already look to be backfiring: 


> Apple wants HTC smartphones that run Android and a number of Nokia devices to be banned from import into the US, claiming that both companies have infringed its patents.
> 
> HTC dismissed the charges, saying it was around long before Apple and that it and Google made fundamentally different choices from what is covered in Apple's patents, which relate to signal processing and inter-process communications.
> 
> ...



http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2044617/apple-sues-samsung-itc-htc-nokia#ixzz1K0UlfXnJ


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> e2a Editor: They have a lot more than that to hang it on... Read the article KE linked to, there's a fuck of a lot. I know we often get into apple vs other debates here, but they have every right (indeed they have a duty to their shareholders) to protect their IP, and Samsung do seem to have stretched them pretty far.


Do they have a right to try and get competitors phones banned from the US via patent trolling?



> Apple wants HTC smartphones that run Android and a number of Nokia devices to be banned from import into the US, claiming that both companies have infringed its patents.
> 
> HTC dismissed the charges, saying it was around long before Apple and that it and Google made fundamentally different choices from what is covered in Apple's patents, which relate to signal processing and inter-process communications.
> 
> ...



The only people losing here are consumers.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Do they have a right to try and get competitors phones banned from the US via patent trolling?



They have a right to seek redress over patent infringements, without actually reading them or a decent summary it's hard to say. And that article seems to point out that Apple dredged them up as a counter to Nokia and others chasing royalties. I'm not going to argue for Apple's legal team though, I'm sure they genuinely are a bunch of litigious cunts, but that's probably not a property unique to them, nor does it make all their cases invalid.



> The only people losing here are consumers.


 
What would you suggest instead?


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> What would you suggest instead?


I'm no expert in this complex field, but I'd say introducing a system where obvious patent trolling is banned and where companies aren't allowed to buy up other company's patents purely as a means of blocking competitors would be a good start. The patent system is supposed to encourage innovation not kill it dead and be used to crush rivals.



> And what is wrong with copying, anyway? This is how society and technolgy advances: by emulation, by learning. The free market thrives on competition and cooperation, and also on emulation and imitation. Every stage of technology is built on the body of knowledge developed over the centuries. Emulation and the acquisition of knowledge play a key role – are essential to – society and economy. Nokia’s own technology was not developed in vacuo. There is nothing wrong with imitation. It is part of the market. It is essential to progress. It is no more theft than learning is. In fact, IP can be a barrier to learning, and even lead to censorship.
> 
> http://blog.mises.org/10986/nokias-...e-illustrates-need-to-scrap-us-patent-system/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> e2a Editor: They have a lot more than that to hang it on... Read the article KE linked to, there's a fuck of a lot. I know we often get into apple vs other debates here, but they have every right (indeed they have a duty to their shareholders) to protect their IP, and Samsung do seem to have stretched them pretty far.


 
I have to say that when I first saw the Samsung Galaxy I remarked to a friend that it looked like a blatant rip off of the iPhone in attempt to siphon off consumers who didn't want or couldn't afford an iPhone. Reading through that filing above it looks like Apple have a fairly good case on their hands (obvious to say I know because they wouldn't have gone for it unless they thought they could win)...but the bigger issue is corporate control of the market and the impact on consumer choice if you ask me...


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

Editor: As with anything like this it's never going to be that simple though... I mean you're then restricting the right to sell patents, do you restrict the right to deal them at a remove, do you restrict the amount a company can buy and in what field etc? I also don't know enough to make any real comment, but basically it's easy to have an idea or principle, it's not quite so easy to frame that legally. Especially when you consider the international nature of patent law. 

As to your quote... The editor of Urban75 using a free-market libertarian post to back up a point? Has to be a first... 

I agree to quite a large extent that patents are more damaging to innovation than actually supportive of it, but within a capitalist economic system I think the alternatives (i.e what free market guy is idealistically hinting at) would probably be a lot worse.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I have to say that when I first saw the Samsung Galaxy I remarked to a friend that it looked like a blatant rip off of the iPhone in attempt to siphon off consumers who didn't want or couldn't afford an iPhone. Reading through that filing above it looks like Apple have a fairly good case on their hands (obvious to say I know because they wouldn't have gone for it unless they thought they could win)...but the bigger issue is corporate control of the market and the impact on consumer choice if you ask me...


 
I don't know, I mean there are plenty of phone designs that haven't fallen foul of Apple's patents and the advantage of using android is that you should be able to create distinctive interfaces. I think what's really got apple's hackles up here is that Samsung are essentially stepping on their business model; i.e That they produce a (debatably) high-end product with a unique interface and styling. They can then sit comfortably on the high end consumer market with pros from their stalwarts (media, graphics etc) also tagging along. Samsung have shat all over that, it's like Windows being released with a default Apple skin...


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> Editor: As with anything like this it's never going to be that simple though... I mean you're then restricting the right to sell patents, do you restrict the right to deal them at a remove, do you restrict the amount a company can buy and in what field etc? I also don't know enough to make any real comment, but basically it's easy to have an idea or principle, it's not quite so easy to frame that legally. Especially when you consider the international nature of patent law.


 
Absolutely.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 20, 2011)

Cid said:


> I don't know, I mean there are plenty of phone designs that haven't fallen foul of Apple's patents and the advantage of using android is that you should be able to create distinctive interfaces. I think what's really got apple's hackles up here is that Samsung are essentially stepping on their business model; i.e That they produce a (debatably) high-end product with a unique interface and styling. They can then sit comfortably on the high end consumer market with pros from their stalwarts (media, graphics etc) also tagging along. Samsung have shat all over that, it's like Windows being released with a default Apple skin...


 
I'm not sure that's it really, this looks more like a way of taking on Android than anything else to me. Apple see the same market shifts that we discuss on here and must be worried they're going to lose out in the longer term in the tablet market also. This is about keeping the iOS operating system dominant (which it appears to be right now).


----------



## Sunray (Apr 20, 2011)

Eh?

Apple has been around a lot longer than HTC.

HTC was started in the early 90's, which I think gives Apple a near 20 year lead.


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

The patent system, especially in the US, is utterly broken. All it's currently doing is further entrenching established names in the face of new competition. Google is a great example - it has a very small patent pool and is now considering buying all of Nortel's old patents for $1bn+ so they have a chance of defending themselves when the merry-go-round gets to them.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2011)

Sunray said:


> Apple has been around a lot longer than HTC.
> 
> HTC was started in the early 90's, which I think gives Apple a near 20 year lead.


They're talking about _how long they've been making phones._ HTC released the O2 XDA in 2002, long before the iPhone arrived.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 20, 2011)

longdog said:


> There are a lot of people like me...


 
There are a tiny number of people like you. The litigiousness of a company is not a consideration for the vast majority of consumers


----------



## tarannau (Apr 20, 2011)

To put some kind of context in the typically unbalanced frothing and made up 'facts', Apple's behaviour is perhaps more understandable when it's traditionally been the most targeted company for frivolous patent claims. It's a game of claiming and counterclaiming to say the least

FWIW Apple wasn't usually regarded as one of the most litigatious companies, failing to get anywhere near to the likes of Microsoft or HP in the number of patent claims made against other corporates. It's hard to get of recent figures admittedly, but I suspect people's perceptions are based more on tribal dislikes than anything approaching in depth of knowledge of patents or legal departments.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2011)

tarannau said:


> It's hard to get of recent figures admittedly, but I suspect people's perceptions are based more on tribal dislikes than anything approaching in depth of knowledge of patents or legal departments.


Either that or the four very high profile cases against major competitors it's recently launched.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2011)

Here's an interesting breakdown of Apple's case.
Here's how one of Apple's charges reads:


> H*ardware and software trade dress claims*
> a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
> the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
> as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
> ...


So, in other words, Apple are alleging that punters may end up buying the Samsung phone instead of the iPhone by mistake because the packaging was so similar.

Apple also claim that these icons infringe their copyright (Apple on the left, Samsung on the right). Apart from the notebook one, they all look fairly generic to me.







Loads - and I mean _loads_ - more here: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/


----------



## magneze (Apr 21, 2011)

That's desperate stuff. A cog for settings and a picture of a notepad for a notepad app. Fuck me, that's innovation right there. Unique. Special.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2011)

A part of me would love to see Palm/HP get involved in all this because if they came on like a Steve Jobs IP sex machine, they could probably take Apple to the cleaners.


----------



## gabi (Apr 21, 2011)

Back to the OP, is android actually trouncing apple? I thought apple was still booting arse. genuine question, cant be arsed reading geek blogs!


----------



## Winot (Apr 21, 2011)

editor said:


> Apple also claim that these icons infringe their copyright (Apple on the left, Samsung on the right). Apart from the notebook one, they all look fairly generic to me.


 
Actually the claim is one of trade mark infringement rather than copyright infringment, although the point you make still stands.  To win Apple must prove that the icons are sufficiently similar to result in consumer confusion.  I'd be pretty surprised if they succeeded on this, not least because the consumer doesn't see the icons in isolation but rather in combination on a phone with other features.

Incidentally, the This is My Next article the Ed links to is excellent - it's very rare for a journalist to understand and explain properly patent/trade mark law.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Back to the OP, is android actually trouncing apple? I thought apple was still booting arse. genuine question, cant be arsed reading geek blogs!


Android is outselling Apple everywhere, and growing at a massive rate.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Back to the OP, is android actually trouncing apple? I thought apple was still booting arse. genuine question, cant be arsed reading geek blogs!


 
It depends on how you want to count success, Android is winning in terms of smartphone sales but Apples iOS has a huge margin of users over Android.


----------



## Cid (Apr 21, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's an interesting breakdown of Apple's case.
> Here's how one of Apple's charges reads:
> So, in other words, Apple are alleging that punters may end up buying the Samsung phone instead of the iPhone by mistake because the packaging was so similar.



Yeah I don't understand that either, I mean Apple have been successful with trade dress litigation before, but that was against the emachines eone (see below), not a globally recognised brand like Samsung...








> Apple also claim that these icons infringe their copyright (Apple on the left, Samsung on the right). Apart from the notebook one, they all look fairly generic to me.



Something looking generic doesn't mean that it is though, design like this is often about making something that shouts 'pick up phone'... As the article points out Apple will argue that Samsung could have gone for any number of designs, but they've gone for ones that are similar to Apple's (well, some more so than others).

Incidentally this is the same article KE linked to earlier in the thread...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 24, 2011)

That's one fugly pc, Apple were right to sue them just to stop them offending my eyes!


----------



## Greebozz (Apr 25, 2011)

This came out well before the iphone 4. looks rather similar.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2011)

And the inevitable countersuit emerges and it looks as daft as Apple's:


> Apple copied many of Samsung's innovations, according to Samsung's U.S. lawsuit. For instance, one of the patents Samsung accuses Apple of violating involves the ability for mobile phones to display the time, the lawsuit says.
> 
> "As users travel across time zones, the ability of a mobile device to update to the local time is important for tracking appointments and meetings," the lawsuit said.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/us-samsung-apple-lawsuit-idUSTRE73S09120110429


----------



## editor (May 29, 2011)

The legal battle just keeps on getting sillier:



> We always knew the Apple / Samsung lawsuit would produce some major fireworks, and Samsung just lit off a corker: the company filed a motion Friday night asking Apple to turn over the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 as part of the discovery process. Seriously! Samsung claims that it needs to see Apple’s future products because devices like the Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1 will presumably be in the market at the same time as the iPhone 5 and iPad 3, and Samsung’s lawyers want to evaluate any possible similarities so they can prepare for further potential legal action from Apple. It’s ballsy, but it’s not totally out of the blue: the move comes just a few days after the judge ordered Samsung to hand over pre-production samples of the Droid Charge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 8.9 so Apple could determine if those products should also be part of the lawsuit and potentially file a motion to block them from the market.
> 
> http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/28/samsung-apple-iphone-5-ipad-3/



Like the author says, it's quite a ballsy move from Samsung. Mad. But still ballsy in this ridiculous farrago of IP copyright battles.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 29, 2011)

Yup Samsung have made themselves like a right bunch of desperate idiots!


----------



## editor (May 29, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yup Samsung have made themselves like a right bunch of desperate idiots!


It strikes me that Apple are rather coming over as the most desperate of the two in this instance, to be honest.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 29, 2011)

I'm shocked that you'd see Apple in a worse light in this situation.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2011)

Apple are now trying to get Samsung's products removed from US shelves.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/02/apple-seeks-preliminary-injunction-on-infuse-4g-galaxy-s-4g-dr/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 2, 2011)

Samsung have dropped their counter suite too in attempt to speed up legal proceedings. Think they've made a real error of judgement here, Apple ain't stopping until they've fucked them enough to undermine Android (see the Apple led consortium win for Nortel's patent as another part of that game plan and cosying up to Twitter too). Vert shrewd business moves being played out right now...


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 2, 2011)

editor said:


> Personally, I think all this patent stuff fucking stinks.


 
Amen to that brother!


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2011)

It's a shame Apple can't continue to lead by innovation rather than trying to crush the competition with heavyweight lawyers and frivolous injunctions.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 3, 2011)

editor said:


> It's a shame Apple can't continue to lead by innovation rather than trying to crush the competition with heavyweight lawyers and frivolous injunctions.


 
They're not frivolous, they wouldn't pursue them if they didn't think they could win, this is corporate strategy laid bare.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> They're not frivolous, they wouldn't pursue them if they didn't think they could win, this is corporate strategy laid bare.


Having enough resources and legal clout to win a case doesn't stop the claims being frivolous in the real world. History is littered with completely barking legal cases. See: woman sues McD over hot coffee.

And this _really_ is frivolous stuff, although I doubt you'll see it.


> Apple first alleges that Samsung’s Galaxy line of android-based phones are in important respects copies of Apple’s iPhone 3GS. These features include: the rectangular shape of the iPhone; the use of rounded corners; a screen with black borders; black borders above and below the screen of approximately equal width with narrower corners on the sides; a top surface ensconced in a metal frame; colorful square icons, corners rounded and displayed in a grid; and a series of icons on the bottom of the display that remain constant as the user browses the phone.
> 
> http://copymarkblog.com/2011/04/22/apples-samsung-lawsuit-the-trademark-issues/


Wow. A phone with curved edges, a border around the screen and square icons. Never seen one of them before the iPhone.






http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2011/04...opy-iphone-and-ipad-sues-them/#comment-517745


----------



## Winot (Jul 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Wow. A phone with curved edges, a border around the screen and square icons. Never seen one of them before the iPhone.


 
As I pointed out in Post 37:



Winot said:


> Release dates are irrelevant - Apple are suing under their design patents and what matters is whether the filing date (or more accurately the priority date) of the design patent predates the date on which Samsung published (i.e. launched) its design.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2011)

Winot said:


> As I pointed out in Post 37:


You can keep on going an awful way back for examples of handheld devices having rectangular shapes, rounded corners, a screen with black borders, colourful square icons etc etc. Like I said, it's a shame Apple can't continue to lead by innovation rather than trying to crush the competition with heavyweight lawyers and frivolous injunctions.


----------



## Winot (Jul 3, 2011)

editor said:


> You can keep on going an awful way back for examples of handheld devices having rectangular shapes, rounded corners, a screen with black borders, colourful square icons etc etc. Like I said, it's a shame Apple can't continue to lead by innovation rather than trying to crush the competition with heavyweight lawyers and frivolous injunctions.


 
Sure; just trying to correct (again) the misapprehension in the LOL@APPLE picture.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2011)

Here's the king sized infographic:


----------



## Structaural (Nov 30, 2011)

editor said:


> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2011/04...opy-iphone-and-ipad-sues-them/#comment-517745


 
You should check your sources, the iPhone was announced before that abortion on the left was announced. The iPhone predates the F700. So that info above, is a fucking lie.

Samsung are the crooks of the industry and have been for ages:
http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-designs-2011-4


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2011)

Structaural said:


> Samsung are the crooks of the industry and have been for ages:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-designs-2011-4


Steve Jobs:


> “Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”


----------



## Structaural (Nov 30, 2011)

Samsung just copies, no innovation, no idea stealing to improve, just pure plagiarising. What's shitty is they do to the companies that get them to make their stuff.


----------



## Structaural (Nov 30, 2011)

I bet Jobs regretted saying that though...


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2011)

Structaural said:


> Samsung just copies, no innovation, no idea stealing to improve, just pure plagiarising. What's shitty is they do to the companies that get them to make their stuff.


Strange then that their second rate 'copy' of the iPhone ended up winning so many awards as the best phone of 2011 - and managed to become the biggest selling smartphone for months on end in the UK.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 30, 2011)

Apple are appealing apparently...


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

editor said:


> Strange then that their second rate 'copy' of the iPhone ended up winning so many awards as the best phone of 2011 - and managed to become the biggest selling smartphone for months on end in the UK.



Well it was new, a certain segment of the population are obsessed with having the latest stuff (like yourself), it's a cheaper knock off of the iPhone, running a knock off OS, and it was very innovative by erm, having erm, oh yeah, a bigger screen (so you need two hands to use it).


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> Well it was new, a certain segment of the population are obsessed with having the latest stuff (like yourself), it's a cheaper knock off of the iPhone, running a knock off OS, and it was very innovative by erm, having erm, oh yeah, a bigger screen (so you need two hands to use it).


Except it's _better_ than an iPhone. Just look at the reviews/awards.



Oh, and you don't need two hands to use an S2 so you clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 1, 2011)

You know what? I couldn't give a fuck what megacorp a is suing megacorp b about and visa versa. I certainly can't imagine cheering one side or the other.

What's the fascination?  Where does this frankly bizzare form of brand worship come from?


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> What's the fascination? Where does this frankly bizzare form of brand worship come from?


Fuck knows. I just wish they'd get back to what they're good at and start innovating rather than trying to sue anything that looks like competition.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

editor said:


> Except it's _better_ than an iPhone. Just look at the reviews/awards.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you don't need two hands to use an S2 so you clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.




Who cares? off-topic, this isn't a comparison between an iPhone and a Galaxy (The 4S has a better CPU and GPU than the S II, and runs OS5 so as to whether it's a better phone, that's purely subjective, regardless of 'awards' from twat mags like T3. As it's basically ripped everything from Apple, it's bound to be a good phone), it's a thread about what rip-off merchants Samsung are.

As Apple have won pretty much every award for the past 3 years, all Samsung has had to do is copy it, grow the screen, add a HDMI slot and they win. No surprises there. They're standing on the shoulders of giants.

Even down to the packaging. Well it saves them spending any money on R&D just copy other's innovations.

My best mate has a S II, I can't get my thumb over to the top right and I have to use my other hand, so I clearly do know what I'm talking about with regards to myself.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> You know what? I couldn't give a fuck what megacorp a is suing megacorp b about and visa versa. I certainly can't imagine cheering one side or the other.
> 
> What's the fascination? Where does this frankly bizzare form of brand worship come from?



I dunno, I think he must have shares in Samsung.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> My best mate has a S II, I can't get my thumb over to the top right and I have to use my other hand, so I clearly do know what I'm talking about with regards to myself.


With _regards to yourself_ you might know what you're talking about but it's evident you're not too well informed about how the phone has been received overall.

There's plenty of reasons why so many reviewers think the Samsung S2 is such a superb phone and it's got very little to do with your daft, simplistic analysis.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 1, 2011)

They're both good phones.  You may prefer one or the other.

I don't think anyone can definitively say one is better than the other.  They're both top of the range and they're both _different_.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> I dunno, I think he must have shares in Samsung.


And that'll be why my last four phones have been made by HTC, Palm, Apple and Samsung. I've never owned a Samsung phone before and I bought it for precisely the same reasons I bought an iPhone 3GS: it was the best phone available at the time.

Will my next phone be a Samsung? I've no idea. Maybe not. You see, unlike some, I don't go for that brand worship loyalty nonsense.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 1, 2011)

In case anyone hasn't seen - Samsung got a big result against Apple in Australia earlier in the week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/30/samsung-galaxy-court-australia-lifts-injunction

Australia will be the first big jurisdiction to watch in this dispute.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> They're both good phones. You may prefer one or the other.
> 
> I don't think anyone can definitively say one is better than the other. They're both top of the range and they're both _different_.


They are indeed. Both excellent phones. However, most reviews I've seen have rated the Samsung as the very best phone currently available (although that's now changing with the Nexus).


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

It's the biggest iPhone rip-off out there, regardless of your blinkered opinion on the matter.

Its success or 'superbness'  is neither here nor there in this discussion.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

editor said:


> And that'll be why my last four phones have been made by HTC, Palm, Apple and Samsung. I've never owned a Samsung phone before and I bought it for precisely the same reasons I bought an iPhone 3GS: it was the best phone available at the time.
> 
> Will my next phone be a Samsung? I've no idea. Maybe not. You see, unlike some, I don't go for that brand worship loyalty nonsense.



I know, you're the Imelda Marcos of phones, some of us are more financially limited, prefer to own a phone for a few years and can't afford to jump platforms every time some new gadget comes out.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> It's the biggest iPhone rip-off out there, regardless of your blinkered opinion on the matter.
> 
> Its success or 'superbness' is neither here nor there in this discussion.



Even if this was true (I'm not on either side of the fence), so what?


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> It's the biggest iPhone rip-off out there, regardless of your blinkered opinion on the matter.


Gosh! They're _identical_! How can anyone possibly tell the difference?


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 1, 2011)

I was looking at static caravan designs today (following a thread on general), and was struck how similar many of them are.

Yet I've never seen an infographic of litigation between caravan designers.

I think everyone should bear that in mind.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

It would be less disingenuous to compare a Galaxy S to an iPhone 3GS, as Apple started suing before the II S was released. Also my previous links show how much Samsung blatantly copy.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 1, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Even if this was true (I'm not on either side of the fence), so what?



Well that goes for almost any discussion, close the thread?


----------



## Diamond (Dec 1, 2011)

Form following function...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> It would be less disingenuous to compare a Galaxy S to an iPhone 3GS, as Apple started suing before the II S was released. Also my previous links show how much Samsung blatantly copy.



It's not just copying devices it's also the blatant attempts at brand association in packaging etc. Samsung knew full well what it was doing when it chose this route as did Apple by reacting the way they have.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> Who cares? off-topic, this isn't a comparison between an iPhone and a Galaxy (The 4S has a better CPU and GPU than the S II...



I thought it wasn't a comparison?


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> I know, you're the Imelda Marcos of phones, some of us are more financially limited, prefer to own a phone for a few years and can't afford to jump platforms every time some new gadget comes out.


Actually, money doesn't come into it. I took out a regular contract on the Palm Pre and when that phone borked, I got o2 to exchange it for an iPhone 3GS. And then I swapped that with a HTC Desire after six months, so I spent no more on those three smartphones than you did on your one phone.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

Structaural said:


> It would be less disingenuous to compare a Galaxy S to an iPhone 3GS, as Apple started suing before the II S was released. Also my previous links show how much Samsung blatantly copy.


Ah right. So now you're saying that the S2 isn't "the biggest iPhone rip-off" after all, yes?


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> I was looking at static caravan designs today (following a thread on general), and was struck how similar many of them are.
> 
> Yet I've never seen an infographic of litigation between caravan designers.
> 
> I think everyone should bear that in mind.


In a sensible world yes.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 2, 2011)

editor said:


> Ah right. So now you're saying that the S2 isn't "the biggest iPhone rip-off" after all, yes?



My points on this thread are simple. The infographic that has informed this thread more than most is wrong. Samsung are known in the industry for being the biggest plaigarisers. The S II is based on the S which was probably the most egregious copying of a competitors product for some time and they are continuing with pretty blatant copying of the iPad.
Samsung will steal your IP, your packaging and the way you brand and counter sue based on some shoddy patents they picked up, rather than to protect their own ideas and creativity of which they seem to have none. Do I care, not really, but facts are important.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2011)

Structaural said:


> My points on this thread are simple. The infographic that has informed this thread more than most is wrong. Samsung are known in the industry for being the biggest plaigarisers. The S II is based on the S which was probably the most egregious copying of a competitors product for some time and they are continuing with pretty blatant copying of the iPad.


Do you think a consumer is likely to mistake the Samsung S2 for the iPhone 4S?


----------



## Structaural (Dec 2, 2011)

How big is your collection of straw men?


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2011)

Structaural said:


> How big is your collection of straw men?


So they've totally copied the iPhone by producing a better phone that has a bigger screen, a different interface and a different shape that is unlikely to ever be mistaken for an iPhone. Glad you've cleared that one up.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 2, 2011)

I think you're just having a conversation by yourself now.


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2011)

Apple's shitty attempt to immediately ban Galaxy sales in the US has just been thrown out.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/03/us-apple-samsung-ruling-idUSTRE7B206D20111203


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2011)

Seriously Apple. Just fuck off.


> *Apple to Samsung: Don't Make Thin or Rectangular Tablets or Smartphones*
> 
> Apple proffers design advice on how Samsung could avoid stepping on Apple’s design patent toes, in a legal brief filed as part of its ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against its competitor.
> 
> ...


Just look at their 'helpful' suggestions:


> The Design Alternatives
> In section 2-40 and 2-41 of the redacted public legal brief (pdf), Apple offers alternative smartphone designs Samsung could have used instead:
> 
> Front surfaces that are not black or clear
> ...


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2011)

Some details of the US court case have been leaked:


> In issuing a court order denying Apple's request for a ban on Samsung products, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh released a document that inadvertently revealed some details on the two companies. Koh later withdrew that document and replaced it with one where the details were redacted. Reuters managed to get a hold of the entire document.
> Reuters said none of the secrets were too earth-shattering. The documents revealed that Apple doesn't consider Samsung to be a major threat. Apple's own studies found that its existing customers were unlikely to trade in their iPhone for a Samsung smartphone. Rather, Samsung would take market share away from some of the other Android smartphone manufacturers.
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57336979-94/whoops-apple-samsung-secrets-leak-from-court-document/


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2011)

And a US court has rejected Apple's bid to get an early ban on Samsung products in the country.


> *Samsung wins most important round yet in battle with Apple - it can sell Galaxy devices in U.S.*
> Samsung 'free to sell' Galaxy devices in America
> Shares rise 2% in wake of ruling
> Nomura analyst says 'tide turning' in Samsung's favour
> ...


----------



## Cid (Dec 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Seriously Apple. Just fuck off.
> 
> Just look at their 'helpful' suggestions:























(all right, that looks shit)


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2011)

Cid said:


> (all right, that looks shit)


1. They're not tablets
2. Apple did not invent flat screened mobiles/tablets with front surfaces that are black, overall shapes that are rectangular, rounded corners, display screens centred on the front face or bizzarely, screens that are flat.

Despite that, it seems that Apple still thinks it has the right to tell rivals to produce chunky triangular tablets with bits of plastic sticking out and a lumpy screen, sitting off centre with a massive bezel.


----------



## Cid (Dec 6, 2011)

Oh ffs:











even this seems to be significantly different enough not to piss off Apple:






This not about having to cram loads of extra stuff on it, or pointless nobs or anything like that, all Apple are saying is design something that doesn't look like a fucking iphone/ipad!


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2011)

Cid said:


> even this seems to be significantly different enough not to piss off Apple:


Sue Kubrick! Look at these iPad-like tablets!


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2011)

And here's another iPad rip off! It's got curved corners! A centred screen! It's black! With a narrow bezel! A flat display! No lumpy bits! OMG!


----------



## Cid (Dec 6, 2011)

There's a big difference between being influenced by a lot of things (no design is truly original after all) and basically copying them... Apple may well fall down on prior art for this, but they are well within their rights to have a go with something this brazen.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 6, 2011)

I think this is going to go the way of the Barbie/Bratz litigation. The Galaxy range is too popular and sells too many to be stopped from selling. It's really hard to sue based on such 'look and feel' type arguments as demonstrated by Apple and Microsoft in the 90s. It'll spend years in court, Samsung don't care as they can retool and redevelop product more easily than most, just look at the range of actual phones they make at the moment.
Samsung and Android have already won, they copied a winning formula and are reaping the benefits. But you must have some sort of reality distortion field to not think Samsung are blatant copiers. Just look at the phones Samsung made prior to the iPhone launch.
It's one thing to innovate: take and improve a bunch of diverse ideas into a new product and another to take the actual product and replicate it.


----------



## magneze (Dec 6, 2011)

from: http://www.reghardware.com/2011/12/06/samsung_imagines_see_through_bendy_oled_tablet_of_the_future/

No innovation at Samsung, no sir.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 6, 2011)

I can do that, I've got After Effects and some 3D software.


----------



## magneze (Dec 6, 2011)

you---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------the point


----------



## Structaural (Dec 6, 2011)

In Star Wars these guys came up with faster than lightspeed, flying ships in space, laserswords, floating cars... it was amazing. Yep, Lucas is one hell of an innovator.


----------



## magneze (Dec 6, 2011)

Ah, you missed the bit about flexible screens in 2012. Oh well.

Post another snappy reply instead.


----------



## pianissimo (Dec 6, 2011)

Thing is, not every company likes to broadcast what they're working on.  Those that are published are for PR purpose.  There may be far more innovation/invention/ideas/whatever they're doing but keeping them behind doors, confidentiality and all.  And that doesn't mean they're not innovative.


----------



## pianissimo (Dec 6, 2011)

Structaural said:


> I can do that, I've got After Effects and some 3D software.


Flexible screen here:


----------



## magneze (Dec 6, 2011)

pianissimo said:


> Thing is, not every company likes to broadcast what they're working on. Those that are published are for PR purpose. There may be far more innovation/invention/ideas/whatever they're doing but keeping them behind doors, confidentiality and all. And that doesn't mean they're not innovative.


Apple are a great example of that. Unfortunately this ridiculous shite about rounded corners is just lawyer fodder. All it will do is make lawyers in other companies even more paranoid and reduce the opportunities for true innovation. Sad.


----------



## Structaural (Dec 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Ah, you missed the bit about flexible screens in 2012. Oh well.
> 
> Post another snappy reply instead.



Did I? Oh. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

In this particular case Samsung didn't innovate, they copied. What else they do was not discussed, nor was their R&D department.
You can go on and discuss other things: the innovation at Samsung, 'the point', fallacy my logicals, I don't mind. Time to pick up my kid, so take your time.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2011)

Funny thing is that Samsung are the people making the non-lumpy screens.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

Samsung's designer has spoken out. Turns out he's rather a modest chap:



> Samsung's lead mobile designer has spoken out about Apple's accusations that the firm has copied its iPhone and iPad designs.
> 
> Lee Minhyouk, vice president of design at Samsung Mobile, admitted that he's not quite on a par with Apple wunderkind Jonathan Ive, but fervently defended his original designs which include the Samsung Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Note.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...ts-back-at-apples-copycat-allegations-1073336


----------



## elbows (Mar 23, 2012)

A 'different design language' eh. And 'it has to be timely'. Hmmmm.

Is that the same as 'quick, gotta make this thing, no time for an original design, lets copy this one'?


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> A 'different design language' eh. And 'it has to be timely'. Hmmmm.
> 
> Is that the same as 'quick, gotta make this thing, no time for an original design, lets copy this one'?


No, it's not. You'd have to be on some specially strong drugs to mistake the S2 with the iPhone 4s.

Apple didn't invent curved corners or flat screens, you know.


----------



## elbows (Mar 23, 2012)

In the case of the phones Im sure thats largely true, but since Samsung are apparently somewhat notorious for ripping stuff off I'm not going to resist heckling their designer. That you disagree is not surprising, and thats fine, I don't exactly think you are dead wrong, all this stuff is grey rather than black & white. For me it was the combination of the galaxy tab design, packaging and accessories such as the charger that made me unafraid to wade into this area in a somewhat sloppy manner. I don't think Samsung should be heavily punished for getting inspiration elsewhere, but nor do I think it should go unmentioned.

Im not sure what it will take for Samsung to have an iconic product. To some degree the S2 probably is, and its not all Samsungs fault that they don't get the same media frenzy as Apple. But to do something truly iconic they need to add a little innovation of their own, and this isn't easy either since such devices are presently in the evolutionary rather than revolutionary phase.

What does different design language mean anyway? And don't you think his comment about stuff needing to be timely is kinda interesting given the context?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 23, 2012)

Read an interesting piece the other day (can't find the link at the mo) which showed that Apple repeatedly made approaches to Samsung prior to the law suites to sort this whole mess out. Had Samsung not been so arrogant perhaps this shit wouldn't have got this far?


----------



## magneze (Mar 23, 2012)

The term "design language" sounds a bit wanky but there's some sense in it.

Taking phone design from the last keyboard models before touchscreen phones really took off, there really wasn't very much way to go from a rectangle with round corners a screen and a keyboard to a rectangle with round corners a much bigger screen and a minimal keyboard of 1-4 buttons.

So, how do you innovate in such a tightly specified space? Well then, design of the buttons themselves becomes important, the way the case looks, the edges of the case are important, the number of buttons. How the grilles for microphone and speaker look. How the camera bits look.

In each one of those cases Samsung phones have a different look from the iPhone which as a whole combines into their phone design. To me, that is the design language. It completely makes sense as an argument against the lawsuit.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 23, 2012)

magneze said:


> The term "design language" sounds a bit wanky but there's some sense in it.
> 
> Taking phone design from the last keyboard models before touchscreen phones really took off, there really wasn't very much way to go from a rectangle with round corners a screen and a keyboard to a rectangle with round corners a much bigger screen and a minimal keyboard of 1-4 buttons.
> 
> ...



Anyone that knows anything about design knows that the term and concept of design language actually had relevance...


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

magneze said:


> In each one of those cases Samsung phones have a different look from the iPhone which as a whole combines into their phone design. To me, that is the design language. It completely makes sense as an argument against the lawsuit.


Indeed. There were also PDAs with more or less the exact same form factor as the iPhone so how Apple can make any claim on devices that are black, rectangular, have rounded corners with flat display screens centred on the front face surrounded by a bezel is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> In the case of the phones Im sure thats largely true, but since Samsung are apparently somewhat notorious for ripping stuff off I'm not going to resist heckling their designer. That you disagree is not surprising, and thats fine, I don't exactly think you are dead wrong, all this stuff is grey rather than black & white. For me it was the combination of the galaxy tab design, packaging and accessories such as the charger that made me unafraid to wade into this area in a somewhat sloppy manner. I don't think Samsung should be heavily punished for getting inspiration elsewhere, but nor do I think it should go unmentioned.


The S2 REALLY does not look anything like the iPhone 4S. Within the limitations of the smartphone genre, there's barely a single thing that is similar. The back is totally different shape and made of a totally different material. The sides are different. The front is different. The profile is different. No normal person is likely to go into a store to buy an iPhone 4S and accidentally come out with a S2.

Most importantly of all, the S2 was technically miles ahead of Apple's offering when it was released. Still is just ahead now too, IMO.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

I can't believe you're still fixated on the 'literally mistaking' aspect of the whole saga... I don't think anyone agreed that would happen, it's just the bit of US law Apple felt they had a case under. Pretty sure it didn't apply to all their cases... The thing is, the original cases were against the S, which does look very similar to the 3g (or whatever it was), the SII cases I imagine piggybacked off that to an extent. And the design _is_ very similar, any designer should be able to see that.

Apple's LCD tech can only take it so far, and Samsung is already well established in the OLED market and has obvious advantages with other hardware, there phones tend to have more features too (as you know), I reckon they could (and in many ways have) outstrip Apple on innovation, but at the moment their actual design is basically derivative and a bit dull.


----------



## magneze (Mar 23, 2012)

Of course the design is similar - once you make virtually the entire front of a rectangular round cornered phone into the screen then they're all going to look similar. The details are quite clearly different though.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

I posted various different phones earlier in the thread, there's a lot you can do with a limited form-factor.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

Cid said:


> The thing is, the original cases were against the S, which does look very similar to the 3g (or whatever it was), the SII cases I imagine piggybacked off that to an extent. And the design _is_ very similar, any designer should be able to see that.


Completely different size. Different button array. Different branding. Different speaker grill. Different button shape. Different button placement. Different back shape. Different back texture. Different camera aperture etc etc etc.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

They even have the same silver ring around the edge. I do realise they're not exactly the same, but fuck - can you really not see how similar those two designs are?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2012)

It's wilful blindness at best, particularly given Samsung's longstanding habit of copying designs from other manufacturers. Christ, their sister company (run by a relative of this corrupt, sprawling chaebol) even put together a blatant smart cover rip off and there are plenty of examples of Samsung adverts and trade displays lifting off Apple logos and iPhone screens wholesale. It doesn't speak of a brand with a distinct self image and a genuine desire to promote its differences.

Yes, it's hard to avoid some similarity but Samsung weren't even trying to distinguish their product, more adhere to the familiar design of the market leader as closely as possible. Most respectable companies wouldn't resort to that trick so repeatedly, on multiple product lines to boot.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

Cid said:


> They even have the same silver ring around the edge. I do realise they're not exactly the same, but fuck - can you really not see how similar those two designs are?


You mean like this?


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

tarannau said:


> Yes, it's hard to avoid some similarity but Samsung weren't even trying to distinguish their product, more adhere to the familiar design of the market leader as closely as possible. Most respectable companies wouldn't resort to that trick so repeatedly, on multiple product lines to boot.


Except they created a _better_ product, with a bigger screen and a design that you'd have to be very, very confused to mistake for an iPhone.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

editor said:


> You mean like this?


 
We've covered that one.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

editor said:


> Except they created a _better_ product, with a bigger screen and a design that you'd have to be very, very confused to mistake for an iPhone.


 
No-one on this thread is arguing that people are going to mistake a Samsung for an iPhone. No-one.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

Cid said:


> No-one on this thread is arguing that people are going to mistake a Samsung for an iPhone. No-one.


So if they don't look similar enough for people to mistake them, what are you arguing about?


----------



## elbows (Mar 23, 2012)

magneze said:


> In each one of those cases Samsung phones have a different look from the iPhone which as a whole combines into their phone design. To me, that is the design language. It completely makes sense as an argument against the lawsuit.


 
Well I know what you mean but especially when I see some of the pictures on this thread, I struggle to think of it as a different design language. Its more of a regional dialect.

The main thrust of this argument will just go around in circles but I know that if I were the Samsung designer and I wanted to be highly regarded, Id be trying to differentiate my stuff far more than they have done in recent years. Its not so easy right now, but next time tech leaps on I'd want to be there first, not playing second fiddle to Apple.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well I know what you mean but especially when I see some of the pictures on this thread, I struggle to think of it as a different design language. Its more of a regional dialect.
> 
> The main thrust of this argument will just go around in circles but I know that if I were the Samsung designer and I wanted to be highly regarded, Id be trying to differentiate my stuff far more than they have done in recent years. Its not so easy right now, but next time tech leaps on I'd want to be there first, not playing second fiddle to Apple.


The S2 differentiates itself from the iPhone 4s in many, may ways. It's thinner for starters and has a much bigger screen. And it's also one of the best selling smartphones ever released.

I think I'd be happy with that if I was its designer.


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2012)

editor said:


> So if they don't look similar enough for people to mistake them, what are you arguing about?


 
Apple brought the law suit against an overall design, in the US legal system the trade dress laws were the ones their lawyers thought covered that most easily, and their laws are worded around that basis of mistaken identity. This is not true of all the law suits or all country's design laws iirc. 



editor said:


> The S2 differentiates itself from the iPhone 4s in many, may ways. It's thinner for starters and has a much bigger screen. And it's also one of the best selling smartphones ever released.
> 
> I think I'd be happy with that if I was its designer.


 
Seriously, read what you just typed - 'it's thinner and has a bigger screen'. That's your idea of differentiating a design? Lets look at some really simple objects... Since I've spent ages nattering with Quoad and the like about pens, lets look at them. A pen has one function (usually) and has to fit in your hand, not be too heavy and hold some kind of ink. pens range from this (iconic mass-manufacture):





to this (hand crafted Japanes lacquer):






There are thousands of different types in between from minimal:





To chunky:






Any number of technical pens, calligraphic pens etc. Many of them, despite fulfilling the same basic purpose and having the same basic form-factor, look completely different from one another. A restricted form-factor _does not_ mean you can't have any number of different designs. Most design is restricted in some way; a good designer rejoices in restrictions, they frame your design, if design is unrestricted it's bloody hard. A great design is often a synthesis of of many designs that came before, a great design is not something that is mainly differentiated from another great design by being slimmer and having a larger screen.

Again, Samsung are miles ahead of Apple in many, many ways, but their overall design is basically just a bit derivative.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 23, 2012)

magneze said:


> Of course the design is similar - once you make virtually the entire front of a rectangular round cornered phone into the screen then they're all going to look similar. The details are quite clearly different though.



It's more than the ripping off of the phone style it's also the branding, check out Samsungs boxes, look at the way they have their devices in their promo shots you can clearly see the brand association at work. I don't think its wise to underestimate how that works for the consumer either, all this guff about people not being able to tell the difference is a big red herring, brand association is a powerful thing. And Samsung know it.


----------



## Winot (Mar 23, 2012)

Design law (at least in Europe) recognises the concepts you're all discussing - it uses the term 'design freedom'. Basically, if there's very little wriggle room (i.e. the designer is relatively constrained in terms of form factor) then you can get a registered design even if the differences between your design and existing designs are quite small.  However, the rights given by your registration are also constrained.

Everyone is comparing the phones, but that's not the test. The test is to compare the allegedly infringing phone with the registered design.

It''s notoriously difficult to answer the question "does this design infringe this registration?". It's a problem both with the law and with perception. I once went to a leading QC for advice on a particular design infringment matter and he told me he didn't understand what the law meant. So I don't think we're going to get anywhere on U75.

There's a lot of talk about the patent system being flawed but it's got nothing on the law of designs.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2012)

And so it goes on with a trial by jury coming up in the US: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19022935

Apple say:





Samsung say:





I've always argued that a lot of the the iPhone's design cues came from Sony, and Apple's own internal documents back that up:



> In accordance with the court petition made by Samsung regarding a patent infringement controversy as it continues its battle with Apple from the year 2006, the year before iPhone was launched, Apple professional designer Shin Nishibori was asked to design an iPhone prototype which was inspired by Sony. The Apple prototype was seen with “Sony” icon bar which was renamed as “Jony” after the Apple design Chief Sir Jonathan Ive.
> http://whdi-reviews.com/2012/07/sam...pples-iphone-the-design-was-inspired-by-sony/








Personally, I wish these two would get their heads knocked together and just move the fuck on and get back to designing new products and innovating.

More: http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...a-Sony-design-concept-floated-in-2006_id32687


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2012)

Interesting that Apple's former designer seems so reluctant to appear in court too:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/apple-business/news/?newsid=3372802


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2012)

US bias perhaps given the status of Jobs in his home country?


> Judge Koh in the Samsung versus Apple trial has ruled against Samsung’s request that there are too many photos of Apple’s late co-founder and CEO featured in the opening slides of Apple’s case.
> 
> She ruled that because each of the images of Steve Jobs "is relevant to Apple’s iPhone design patent and trade dress claims and is not unduly prejudicial," writes Foss Patents.
> 
> ...


Foss Patents take:


> Samsung makes an equal treatment kind of argument: "If Apple is allowed to use these slides, Samsung requests that the Court allow it to use the quotes from Mr. Jobs -- which do have nonprejudicial evidentiary value -- and yet were excluded by the Court's ruling on Apple's Motion in Limine No. 7."
> 
> Simply put, if Apple shows pictures of Steve Jobs in its opening presentation, Samsung wants to quote the part on "thermonuclear war" against Android from Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography. But things aren't that simple. Quotes from that biography are just hearsay and were deemed inadmissible without any exception. As far as Apple's references to Steve Jobs are concerned, Judge Koh made this subject to case-by-case decisions, and we'll know soon how many of those five appearances in Apple's opening slides will be allowed by the court. I doubt that she's going to strike all five of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 31, 2012)

The good thing that's come out of this is demystifying Apple's design with all the photos of prototypes. Love it when a corporations marketing is so effectively stripped away.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 1, 2012)

Lol now this is a little suspect:



> _McElhinny showed jurors an internal Samsung product analysis which said the *iPhone's hardware was "easy to copy.*" Another document prepared by a Samsung executive said the company was in a "crisis of design" due to the iPhone._


 
Link.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2012)

How's it any different to Apple copying Sony to such a degree that their prototype even had a Sony logo on it!

It's how innovation has been driven for years and how Japan ended up producing so many great cameras after the war: copy, improve and innovate.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 1, 2012)

Where did Apple copy a Sony device?


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Where did Apple copy a Sony device?


Right here:


> A recent court filing by Samsung reveals that in 2006 Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori was directed to design an iPhone prototype inspired by Sony's aesthetics after Tony Fadell internally circulated an interview with a designer from the company. An assortment of renders reveal his design, complete with a Sony logo — save for one where the logo has been modified to read "Jony," presumably in honor of Apple's Jony Ive.
> 
> Apple designer Richard Howarth took note of the renders, and in a 2006 email told Ive that that he felt the design allowed for a "much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape" for making calls when compared to another prototype, referred to as "P2." The extruded design of the P2 bears a striking resemblance to the iPod Mini, with a large screen replacing the scroll wheel (looking at the P2 prototype also strongly brings Nokia's Lumia line to mind). Pictured with the P2 is what is clearly an early prototype for what would become the iPhone 4 and 4S sandwich design.
> 
> Howarth comments that Nishibori's Sony-inspired look is "only half a step away" from what is now Cupertino's current model. In an amusing aside, Howard also tells Ive that the iPhone 4 design "looks old" when compared to the P2, but that it would be more usable.


Look familiar?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 1, 2012)

It's funny though how hard you've argued against what everyone can see that Samsung have clearly ripped Apple off now they've even admitted it and instead of being outraged you're in denial about your favorite arms dealing phone maker.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's funny though how hard you've argued against what everyone can see that Samsung have clearly ripped Apple off now they've even admitted it and instead of being outraged you're in denial about your favorite arms dealing phone maker.


Sorry, but I can't be arsed with your infantile arguments which, as ever, miss the point by a country mile.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2012)

Here's some snippets from Samsung's trial brief:


> Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today‘s smartphones. Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung‘s patented technology.
> 
> For good measure, Apple seeks to exclude Samsung from the market, based on its complaints that Samsung has used the very same public domain design concepts that Apple borrowed from other competitors, including Sony, to develop the iPhone. Apple‘s own internal documents show this. In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived of, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article that contained an interview of a Sony designer to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, the Sony designer discussed Sony portable electronic device designs that lacked "excessive ornamentation" such as buttons, fit in the hand, were "square with a screen" and had "corners [which] have been rounded out."
> 
> ...


Full PDF here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 1, 2012)

Wow Samsung should be careful about leaking 'evidence' barred by the court, they might tempt the judge to slap them down hard!

http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/31/samsu...cly-releasing-barred-evidence-in-apple-trial/

Bad form that.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Wow Samsung should be careful about leaking 'evidence' barred by the court, they might tempt the judge to slap them down hard!
> 
> http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/31/samsu...cly-releasing-barred-evidence-in-apple-trial/
> 
> Bad form that.


 
Why weren't they allowed at trial?

Seems pretty vital evidence to me, you know, of their pre i-phone designs in a case about them, you know, copying the i-phone.

The whole bullshit of this bullshit is exactly that.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Why weren't they allowed at trial?
> 
> Seems pretty vital evidence to me, you know, of their pre i-phone designs in a case about them, you know, copying the i-phone.
> 
> The whole bullshit of this bullshit is exactly that.


Indeed. The evidence seems to smash Apple's case to pieces - and that's not taking into account the stuff already released about Apple copying Sony's designs.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2012)

What a bizarre line of reasoning: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3225610/hal-poret-testimony-apple-samsung-trial-survey


----------



## Winot (Aug 8, 2012)

editor said:


> What a bizarre line of reasoning: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3225610/hal-poret-testimony-apple-samsung-trial-survey



Assume this is about the US, but in the UK at least it is pretty much impossible to construct a survey that the courts will take any notice of - most are rightly considered flawed.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 8, 2012)

This case is bloody amusing, Apple trying to show Samsung are skanks, Samsungs own polling showing consumers where confused by iPad and Galaxy Tabs. Round and round it goes!


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 8, 2012)

Other than shareholders/lawyers does anyone care?


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Other than shareholders/lawyers does anyone care?


We all should care because we ultimately pay for all this shit.


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 8, 2012)

Patent Wars is a game all sides seem happy to engage in.

If Company A feels Company B has infringed their rights then they have little choice but to sue - if only to satisfy shareholders and to stop a future Company C coming along and taking further liberties.

I doubt we'd have cheaper toys if they didn't do this shit


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> I doubt we'd have cheaper toys if they didn't do this shit


Who do you think ultimately absorbs the costs of the massive legal fees then?


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 8, 2012)

Obviously, they must justify it as some kind of research and development cost. 

And if Apple hadn't spent ONE BILLION advertising the iPhone and iPad I'd have been
quids in 



ETA Changed 3 billion to 1 billion and attached link.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2012)

It's said that Apple spent $100 million in legal fees on just its first set of claims against HTC so the final bill for all their actions must be stratospheric.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2012)

There really does seem to be something funny going on with this interminable trial.


> Samsung Electronics won't be able to use the testimony of one of its key designers in its case against Apple, according to a court document filed and signed by Federal Judge Lucy Koh yesterday.
> Hyong Shin Park, who was the lead designer for Samsung's F700 phone, will be barred from testifying, as the court sided with Apple's request to keep her from the courtroom.
> 
> Park has said that Samsung's phones were inspired by a "bowl of water" and not the iPhone. Apple argued that her project, the F700, isn't in the list of accused phones, and that her testimony isn't relevant to the case.
> ...


User comment: 


> Wait....what? The designer of a phone that predates the iPhone, and happens to be a black rectangle with rounded corners and a full touch screen, isn't allowed to testify, but some random "industrial design expert" from a third party is? Something's fishy here.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2012)

So the international versions of Samsung's big selling phones have been taken off Apple's claims.


> 0​inShare​Judge Lucy Koh has just ruled that the Galaxy S GT-i9000, the S II GT-i9100, and Galaxy Ace are no longer part of the Apple v. Samsung trial. After Apple wrapped up its testimony earlier today, Samsung provided an hour-long argument for a judgement as a matter of law (JMOL), asking the judge to rule that Apple hadn't proved its case sufficiently, and that Samsung be allowed to walk out the door without mounting a defense.
> 
> Amongst other issues, Samsung argued that Apple hadn't provided a reason why the international Galaxy S, S II, or Ace should be included in the list of accused devices. All three products weren't offered for direct sale in the United States by Samsung or any of Samsung's subsidiaries — carriers received their own variants — and with the trial only covering devices sold in the US, the burden of proof was on Apple to argue why they should have been included in the first place. Koh agreed that Apple hadn't done so, and granted the judgement.
> 
> ...


This is interesting too:
*Samsung exec: Don't copy, 'learn the wisdom of the iPhone'*
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...m-of-the-iphone/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2012)

I still don't get why Samsung aren't allowed to show this: 






http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/3...ds-leaking-information-apple-patent-trial.htm


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 14, 2012)




----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2012)




----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2012)

Another of Apple's claims of innovation is starting to look a little less convincing:


> *Samsung calls Apple patents into question with LaunchTile and DiamondTouch table*
> 
> Samsung started off its case today by going straight at the heart of Apple's utility patents, showing off two software systems with similar functionality that pre-date iOS altogether. Adam Bogue, president of Circle 12, showed off images and video of a projection-based touchscreen surface called the DiamondTouch Table. Developed in 2001 at the Mitsubishi Electronic Research Laboratory (MERL), the DiamondTouch featured two particularly-relevant pieces of software: Fractal Zoom, an application that allowed users to manipulate images using multiple fingers, and Tablecloth.
> 
> The latter allows users to pull an image down in a window, revealing a duplicate image right above it; letting go causes the image to snap back to its original position, providing a visual effect that appeared quite similar to Apple's bounce-back effect. The DiamondTouch was easily accessible in the MERL lobby for anyone to access, leaving open the possibility that anyone in Cupertino could have seen the device — in fact, Bogue revealed that he'd even given a demonstration to Apple itself in 2003.


http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3240686/samsung-apple-patents-launchtile-diamondtouch-table


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2012)

Just when you thought this Apple vs Samsung trial couldn't get any dafter, nor the judge any more annoyed:


> Judge Lucy Koh has been going increasingly terse with both Apple and Samsung as the trial continues, and she just let Apple have it after receiving a 75-page briefing. The document covered 22 potential rebuttal witnesses the company might want to call after Samsung finishes presenting its case. With the jury out of the courtroom, Koh laid into Apple, asking why it would present such a lengthy document "when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!"
> 
> Apple attorney William Lee stepped forward, saying "First, your honor, I'm not smoking crack. I can promise you that." The company's legal team agreed to pare down the document, with attorney Michael Jacobs claiming that the company didn't mean to burden the court — and that it truly believed it would be able to run through all of its witnesses in the time it has remaining. Jacobs also pointed out that some of those addressed in the document were Samsung's witnesses, not Apple's.
> 
> ...


They should just knock their heads together and tell them to get back to making stuff.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 16, 2012)

"I ain't smoking crack your honor."

Crazy to actually have to respond to that! The judge sounds like a bit of media whoring twat tbh...


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 16, 2012)

Can we have a sub forum for patent dispute and litigation threads? I'd suggest calling it 'The Patently Dull Forum'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 16, 2012)

fen_boy said:


> Can we have a sub forum for patent dispute and litigation threads? I'd suggest calling it 'The Patently Dull Forum'



I actually think (name aside!) that's a great idea, these law suits ain't going away and it's only going to get worse.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The judge sounds like a bit of media whoring twat tbh...


Instead of slagging her off as a 'twat' you should perhaps read up on the dispute - she actually sounds by far the most sensible of all the parties concerned.

She has twice asked Apple and Samsung to try and resolve this issue privately rather than dredge it through the courts.


----------



## Chz (Aug 19, 2012)

The judge in this case comes off as a bit odd because she's the only sane one in the courtroom.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 19, 2012)

Chz said:


> The judge in this case comes off as a bit odd because she's the only sane one in the courtroom.



I don't know a judge actually accusing a legal brief of smoking crack doesn't strike me as normal, like I said media whore, attention seeker...


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2012)

Chz said:


> The judge in this case comes off as a bit odd because she's the only sane one in the courtroom.


Damn straight. I can't blame her for getting frustrated with this ridiculous case.


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 20, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I don't know a judge actually accusing a legal brief of smoking crack doesn't strike me as normal, like I said media whore, attention seeker...


Have you never seen Judge Judy?

You & ed could do with a dose of her rough justice.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Have you never seen Judge Judy?
> 
> You & ed could do with a dose of her rough justice.


Stop your stirring.


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Stop your stirring.


That's what she said!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 21, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Have you never seen Judge Judy?
> 
> You & ed could do with a dose of her rough justice.



Lol Ed's deffo the kind of fella that'd love a judge to Judy him.


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol Ed's deffo the kind of fella that'd love a judge to Judy him.


Stop this infantile, disruptive nonsense, please.


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2012)

The Verge are covering the end of the trial like an Apple product launch!
http://live.theverge.com/apple-closing-arguments-apple-vs-samsung-trial/


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2012)

Interesting take on the trial here:



> _As the Apple-Samsung trial shifts to the hands of the jury, Harvard Business Review’s James Allworth asks whether we should even prosecute copying in the first place._
> 
> 
> This is particularly relevant in the context of the Apple/Samsung trial, because it isn’t the first time Apple has been involved in a high-stakes “copying” court case. If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous “look and feel” lawsuit against Microsoft.
> ...


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/08/who-cares-if-samsung-copied-apple/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 21, 2012)

.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 21, 2012)

Gizmodo are an objective source on Apple for sure.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Gizmodo are an objective source on Apple for sure.


Here. Read the original Harvard Business Review article it's referencing, then:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/08/who_cares_if_samsung_copied_ap.html


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2012)

Another interesting piece on Mashable:


> Some copying is inevitable in any industry that isn’t a monopoly. Today, all planes are based on the Wright brothers’ vision of controlled flight. While current patent law tries to deal with such broad technologies with what are called standard-essential patents — where the holder essentially must allow licensing of the tech — some of the non-standard claims made in Apple-Samsung are just as broad.
> 
> *Look. Feel. Copy.*
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2012)

Just gets dafter:



> *Apple and Samsung banned in South Korea*
> Products including the iPhone 4 and Galaxy SII are affected by the new sales ban.
> Two of the the world's biggest tech heavyweights - Apple and Samsung - have become the target of a court ruling that deemed both parties had infringed each other's patents.
> 
> ...


 

http://news.uk.msn.com//blog/trending-blogpost.aspx?post=47db2b5f-b064-4ac7-93e6-1aaebd9cf152


----------



## Chz (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh it would be so delicious to have that be the outcome in the US.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2012)

Chz said:


> Oh it would be so delicious to have that be the outcome in the US.


It would be a glorious conclusion to Apple's arrogance, although I suspect home bias will favour Apple in the US and they won't be compelled to run apologies to Samsung in the press like the UK court originally ruled.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 24, 2012)

Looks like the verdict is due very soon. I reckon Apple will lose this one.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

Wow. Called that one wrong!


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 25, 2012)

Apple awarded $ 1.05 billion in damages ouch


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

Drop in the ocean for Samsung.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2012)

Not surprisingly, Apple won on its home turf with a US jury, but as many people are observing: it's not a win for consumers.

No doubt Samsung will appeal and this whole sad travesty will continue on in the courts for years to come with us punters being the losers. It's pathetic.

Good article in the Guardian:


> But we're likely to see a ban on many mobile devices from Samsung and other manufacturers in the wake of this case, as an emboldened Apple tries to create an unprecedented monopoly. If so, the ultimate loser will be competition in the technology marketplace, with even more power accruing to a company that already has too much....
> 
> Crucially, the jury found none of Apple's patents invalid, despite substantial evidence that others anticipated many of the innovations that Apple put together when it released its first iPhone. This is a shame, because Apple's abuse of our out-of-control patent system has given Apple its chief ammunition in its global campaign to destroy Google's Android operating system, which Samsung (and many others) adopted for its smart phones.


 


> Now, I'm not a fan of Samsung. Like so many others in the technology world, it has has behaved in ethically questionable ways. And it quite plainly did mimic much of the functionality of the iPhone – though it was Apple's longtime CEO, Steve Jobs, who famously quoted Picasso's adage that good artists copy and great artists steal.
> But in recent years, I have become even less a fan of Apple. It is now the uber-bully of the technology industry, and is using its surging authority – and vast amounts of cash – in ways that are designed to lock down our future computing and communications in the newest frontier of smart phones and tablets.





> And if Apple can abuse that off-the-rails system to thwart innovation and the iterative process that sees all tech companies build on the successes of the past, the most valuable company in the world will have more power than what it has richly earned through smart business practices.
> The cases in Seoul, San Jose and around the world are about everyone's future. For people who believe in competition in technology, and freedom in how we use it, Friday's events were bleak, indeed.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...-crushes-samsung-quest-global-tech-domination


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

Can Mercedes Benz now sue Ford et al?


----------



## peterkro (Aug 25, 2012)

This is insane,Apple wins court case Samsung appeals on and on it goes only the lawyers rake it in.In the mean time Apple goes with a Japanese memory manufacturer instead of Samsung and Samsung loses $10 billion off it's share price.It's only a few years ago Apple gave Samsung $10 billion up front so it could open a devoted production line for Apple memory.I'm with the French revolutionaries on this, repeal all patent laws (the reactionaries soon bought them back),if you want to see a huge surge in inventiveness that is the way to go.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

Looks like this will have serious consequences for Apple's cases in other countries too. Interesting that Samsungs dirty tricks media campaign and rather odd counter-case came to nothing too.



> The jurors rejected every single one of the South Korean company's patent claims, and backed Apple's claim that Samsung had breached US antitrust laws by trying to keep its wireless patents as a monopoly.



From Guardian article.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

peterkro said:


> This is insane,Apple wins court case Samsung appeals on and on it goes only the lawyers rake it in.In the mean time Apple goes with a Japanese memory manufacturer instead of Samsung and Samsung loses $10 billion off it's share price.It's only a few years ago Apple gave Samsung $10 billion up front so it could open a devoted production line for Apple memory.I'm with the French revolutionaries on this, repeal all patent laws (the reactionaries soon bought them back),if you want to see a huge surge in inventiveness that is the way to go.



It gets worse, if this verdict allows Apple to sue the shit out smaller Android makers like LG and HTC it'll stop devices from being sold, shrink the Android device market and mean consumers will have to rely on a few huge corporations for choice in the market place.

Wonder if they're bricking it over at Google hq right now as this is a major victory against them with long lasting future impact...


----------



## gabi (Aug 25, 2012)

Good fucking riddance. Party at Jonny Ive's place tonight methinks. And rightly so.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

Microsoft are very happy with the verdict:



> Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2012)

Apple will only get this kind of landslide result in their own country. Most sensible courts around the world would laugh their claims out of court (see UK verdict).


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

If this sticks this is a HUGE victory for Apple (wrongly or rightly) and will influence other judgments elsewhere.


----------



## elbows (Aug 25, 2012)

editor said:


> Apple will only get this kind of landslide result in their own country. Most sensible courts around the world would laugh their claims out of court (see UK verdict).


 
Not as simple as that. If I remember correctly the famous UK case was over design rights, not other sorts of patents. In the US case there were both feature and design patents, and Samsung was found not guilty over at least one of the design patents. 

The devil is also in the detail when it comes to the impact of this stuff. Gotta study the specific patents Apple has prevailed over to see what the implications are, for example we have seen certain features stripped out of products to get rid of sales bans. 

My attitude remains similar to when I moaned about the misuse of the term 'patent troll'. I have my own feelings about intellectual property and indeed private property in general, but there is no point in pretending that the current laws & systems are just being totally misused by Apple and others these days. Indeed the point this overlooks is that in some cases what we are seeing is not the system being made a joke out of, but the system actually being used to enforce the very rights its designed to protect. So sometimes its not Apple taking the piss, if there is a joke then its in the system, not one corporations use of it.


----------



## elbows (Aug 25, 2012)

And I have very mixed feelings on this case because some of the implications may suck, though it will take me some time to chew over the detail.

The one sense in which I think the judgement was well deserved harks back to the conversations we had months ago about Samsung being notorious for cutting corners by borrowing design elements from others in too wholesale a fashion. Its bitten them on the bum in this case:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...-apple-more-than-$1b-finds-samsung-infringed/



> For Samsung, it was a series of damning internal documents, many of which showed that the company looked to Apple's devices for cues when designing its software icons and general features. One such internal report contained numerous side-by-side slides in which the company put a prerelease version of its initial Galaxy smartphone next to the iPhone and offered suggestions on how to make the Galaxy more similar to the Apple device.


 
Oops!


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> The devil is also in the detail when it comes to the impact of this stuff. Gotta study the specific patents Apple has prevailed over to see what the implications are, for example we have seen certain features stripped out of products to get rid of sales bans.


It was interesting the way Apple focused on a bunch of 'old' Samsung phones to illustrate their point, perhaps they didn't feel so confident with challenging Samsung's newer models.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> And I have very mixed feelings on this case because some of the implications may suck, though it will take me some time to chew over the detail.
> 
> The one sense in which I think the judgement was well deserved harks back to the conversations we had months ago about Samsung being notorious for cutting corners by borrowing design elements from others in too wholesale a fashion. Its bitten them on the bum in this case:
> 
> ...



Yup according to one juror those emails were damning: http://allthingsd.com/20120825/apple-samsung-juror-tells-cnet-debate-was-heated/

Reading it it's pretty blatant that Samsung did consciously copy Apple, doesn't matter what nationality the jury were that's a fact there for all non fandroids to see.


----------



## Winot (Aug 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> The devil is also in the detail when it comes to the impact of this stuff. Gotta study the specific patents Apple has prevailed over to see what the implications are, for example we have seen certain features stripped out of products to get rid of sales bans.



Where's the fun in a detailed knowledgable analysis? Far better to use the result as a hook on which to hang one's own prejudice.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2012)

Very interesting piece suggesting that the jury's verdict could be appealed :
http://m.gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 28, 2012)

Looks like the market approves of Apple's victory, Samsung's had 12 billion wiped off it's share value. Ouch!



> Samsung Electronics shares slumped 7.5 percent on Monday, wiping more than $12 billion off the South Korean giant's market value, as a sweeping victory for Apple Inc in a U.S. patent lawsuit raised concerns about its smartphone business - its biggest cash cow.
> 
> Samsung, which says it will contest the verdict, was ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages after a California jury found it had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and could face an outright sales ban on key products.


----------



## magneze (Aug 28, 2012)

Sigh. Tapatalk doesn't implement ignore.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 28, 2012)

magneze said:


> Sigh. Tapatalk doesn't implement ignore.


 
Yup, it's a real shame too...


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2012)

Excellent comment in the Guardian:
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win
Just like Microsoft, Apple's evolution from smart tech company to global uber-brand contains the seeds of its own destruction
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...ng-lawsuit-win?cat=commentisfree&type=article


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2012)

All empires fall...a constant lesson from history. Apple will be no different, nor will Facebook or Samsung.


----------



## RaverDrew (Aug 29, 2012)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2012)

Lol


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 29, 2012)

> Hearing on Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung smartphones delayed until December


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/29/apple-samsung-sales-ban-court-december on the appeal?

Cold custard on their victory - will there be an


----------



## elbows (Aug 29, 2012)

editor said:


> Excellent comment in the Guardian:
> Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win
> Just like Microsoft, Apple's evolution from smart tech company to global uber-brand contains the seeds of its own destruction
> http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...ng-lawsuit-win?cat=commentisfree&type=article


 
Apple will fall one day, but that article fails to actually make it clear how this will happen. Apple dont need to innovate all that often in order to maintain their slice of the pie, and the Microsoft example at the end doesn't help the articles case because Microsoft still dominates several important areas and if anything did them in it was the net & its implications, along with dropping the ball for years with mobile operating systems.


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 29, 2012)

I suspect I'll die before Apple does.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Apple will fall one day, but that article fails to actually make it clear how this will happen. Apple dont need to innovate all that often in order to maintain their slice of the pie, and the Microsoft example at the end doesn't help the articles case because Microsoft still dominates several important areas and if anything did them in it was the net & its implications, along with dropping the ball for years with mobile operating systems.



Indeed MS are still going strong, they also had a lot of anti competitive stuff thrown at them too...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> I suspect I'll die before Apple does.



I dunno you know...I remember how big AOL was...y


----------



## gabi (Aug 31, 2012)

Samsung wins a relatively minor point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19433019


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

This is an interesting piece and another indicator of Sony's huge influence on product design: 
Samsung's 'Design Revolution' started in 1996 with Sony, not Apple
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3...evolution-started-in-1996-with-sony-not-apple


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 31, 2012)

LOL!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 31, 2012)

.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

I wish you wouldn't keep posting up these inane 9GAG.com graphics. They're not very funny and add nothing to the discussion.

Anyway, back on topic, things may heat up with the releease of the iPhone/New iPhone (or whatever they're going to cal it) if it comes with LTE:



> *Samsung may sue Apple over LTE technology*
> Samsung's ongoing dispute with Apple shows no sign of abating with the company reportedly threatening to take legal action over long-term evolutionary technology (LTE)
> According to a report from the Korea Times, Samsung executives plan to immediately sue Apple if it releases products that use the advanced technology, more commonly referred to as 4G.
> Nokia holds the greatest proportion of the world's LTE patents at 18.9 per cent but Samsung holds more than 12 per cent of the world's LTE patents, according to data from Thomson Reuters.
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 31, 2012)

You really are a humorless bastard.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 1, 2012)

Looks like Apple is going after the Tab and S3 now too...on the patent war rumbles...


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

This highest ranked user comment on Engadget sums it up well:


> This is what happens when you let a patent troll win.


http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/31/apple-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-galaxy-note-patent-lawsuit/


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2012)

editor said:


> This highest ranked user comment on Engadget sums it up well:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/31/apple-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-galaxy-note-patent-lawsuit/



Why do you think Apple is a patent troll?


----------



## tarannau (Sep 1, 2012)

Because he's frothinghly unbalanced to the point of parody?

There are depressing flaws in the patent system admittedly, but to portray Apple's case as baseless trolling is ludicrous. Samsung is far from blameless here, closely and clumsily aping Apple's UI, design and even packaging and peripherals in its early, hasty attempts to catch up in the marketplace. It was a ham fisted strategy designed to exploit familiarities with the iphone rather than build a compelling, distinct alternative, piggybacking on another's success.

Since then Samsung's products have increasingly developed their own feel and features, making much of this whole legal shaboodle seem even more ridiculous. But severe reservations about the patent system and what's actually patentable notwithstanding, Samsung doesn't come out of this whiter than white either. I don't expect a corporation of that scale and size to act quite so cack-handedly in their pursuit of the (then) market leader.


----------



## elbows (Sep 1, 2012)

editor is hardly the only one for whom the term patent troll has lost its original meaning. It originally meant companies that dont really do anything other than threaten others over patent infringement, especially companies that went around buying the patents of others for use in this way. But now it seems to mean any company that goes off on a patent battle that people think is excessive.I would rather stick to its original meaning and call the second thing something else but I fear its too late for that.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

Winot said:


> Why do you think Apple is a patent troll?


Well, not so much a patent troll as a filthy rich corporate using their vast resources to manipulate a broken patent system to try and crush competition by hugely dubious means. They can't compete on innovation, so now they're trying to use the courts to ban superior rival products.

They're turned into an utterly disgraceful company - far worse than Microsoft ever were - and their actions are bad for innovation and bad for consumers.

This sums it up well:


> Why Apple needs to lose the Samsung appeal
> 
> I have to admit, I’m a huge Apple fan. I’ve bought practically every Apple device ever made. I am usually one of those in line the first day Apple releases a new product, and I own Apple stock.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

tarannau said:


> Since then Samsung's products have increasingly developed their own feel and features, making much of this whole legal shaboodle seem even more ridiculous. But severe reservations about the patent system and what's actually patentable notwithstanding, Samsung doesn't come out of this whiter than white either. I don't expect a corporation of that scale and size to act quite so cack-handedly in their pursuit of the (then) market leader.


Apple are now trying to ban ALL sales of the Galaxy S3. Do you think that's justified?


----------



## gabi (Sep 1, 2012)

Apple 'can't compete on innovation'?

Seriously? Then why are the rest of the field constantly playing catch-up?

Who, out of interest, do you consider to be innovative in the mobile/tablet field?


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> Seriously? Then why are the rest of the field constantly playing catch-up?


Please enlighten me how the Galaxy S3 is playing 'catch up' with the iPhone 4S.

And then there's those rumours of Apple launching a smaller iPad (see: Samsung, Nexus, Amazon), a phone with NFC (see: loads of other manufacturers), an iPhone with a larger sized screen (see: loads of other manufacturers) etc etc. And then there's the case of the notifications system that was ruthlessly ripped off Android.

Apple used to be miles ahead of the game when it came to mobiles, but those days are long gone. Tell me what was new, exciting and innovative between the iPhone 4 and 4S?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 1, 2012)

tarannau said:


> Because he's frothinghly unbalanced to the point of parody?
> 
> There are depressing flaws in the patent system admittedly, but to portray Apple's case as baseless trolling is ludicrous. Samsung is far from blameless here, closely and clumsily aping Apple's UI, design and even packaging and peripherals in its early, hasty attempts to catch up in the marketplace. It was a ham fisted strategy designed to exploit familiarities with the iphone rather than build a compelling, distinct alternative, piggybacking on another's success.
> 
> Since then Samsung's products have increasingly developed their own feel and features, making much of this whole legal shaboodle seem even more ridiculous. But severe reservations about the patent system and what's actually patentable notwithstanding, Samsung doesn't come out of this whiter than white either. I don't expect a corporation of that scale and size to act quite so cack-handedly in their pursuit of the (then) market leader.



The issue *is* the system, Apple aren't special all other companies in their position would do the same. By focusing so much on Apple all their detractors are doing are feeding the problem by distracting from the underlying issue. 

Nothing will change with that approach but if a bunch of fandroids get to bitch and rant about their hate figure I guess it doesn't matter much eh?


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The issue *is* the system, Apple aren't special all other companies in their position would do the same. By focusing so much on Apple all their detractors are doing are feeding the problem by distracting from the underlying issue.


People are 'focussing' on Apple because with their ruthless and relentless attempts to get rival products banned they appear to be enthusiastically following Steve Jobs' publicly stated stated aim to "destroy Android."

Let's hope it backfires massively.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 1, 2012)

No they're not people are focusing on Apple because it's trendy to hate them. Not that it matters because they aren't the issue the system is.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> No they're not people are focusing on Apple because it's trendy to hate them. Not that it matters because they aren't the issue the system is.


Nothing to do with them being the biggest tech company in the world currently doing more than any other manufacturer to ban rival products off the shelves, then?

And nothing to do with Jobs' publicly stated mission desire to "destroy" rivals either - it's all just because they're_ "trendy?"_







Meanwhile...
*Apple Worked A Broken Patent System*
Apple used a dysfunctional U.S. patent system to gain excessive control over technologies it did not invent. If you value innovation, don't cheer Samsung's punishment.


> Apple believes its market leadership and patents means it owns key elements of modern smartphone design.
> 
> "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go to thermonuclear war on this," Steve Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson (Steve Jobs, page 512).
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Sep 1, 2012)

editor said:


> Apple used to be miles ahead of the game when it came to mobiles, but those days are long gone. Tell me what was new, exciting and innovative between the iPhone 4 and 4S?



Apple were never going to be able to maintain that sort of innovation. To see why we need to explore what is meant by innovation of this kind, and its cyclic nature.

Apple eventually won gushing praise for innovation with the iPhone because a series of hardware improvements came of age, and Apple were able to apply them to a segment where progress had fallen well below what could be achieved when a fresh player entered the market with high expectations.

At its heart this involved a decent multitouch screen and an OS that could make a few good uses of it. Later the app store took things further, then the application of this stuff to tablets, then a leaps in screen density. 

Its not hard to see why this sort of innovation could not be maintained. For a start there are not a rich array of new hardware technologies sitting around waiting to be exploited and applied to a segment thats fallen behind.  And attempts to innovate through OS & software do not tend to be held in very high esteem, eg Siri should be on the list of Apple innovations of recent years but its easy to dismiss it as a gimmick.

As for why this had lead to patent woes, I blame 4 factors. Apple themselves (though mostly not to mask a lack of innovation), the behaviour of certain competitors, the system, and the nature of tech goods as a market.

Put simply, companies in many sectors are used to profiting from innovations for a long, long time. The patent system was designed to support this. When Dyson innovated, they wanted to keep this innovation for themselves, especially as other players had shown little interest in buying into their ideas early on. Since the vacuum cleaner market hardly moves at the same pace as smartphones, there was no massive backlash about Dyson getting in the way of progress or limiting consumer choice. Apple have taken the same approach, viewing android, quite correctly, as being a ripoff of their innovations. But there are numerous reasons why this is not a good fit for IT industries, and why people will get upset with companies or the patent system as a result.

Personally Id rather not think of things in terms of ripoff at all. I am a fan of not just opensource software, but also a small but growing trend in opensource hardware. But although capitalism is able to make use of these alternatives to an extent, there are some large contradictions between this way of doing things and traditional views on intellectual property.


----------



## biggus dickus (Sep 1, 2012)

I read something about this the other day saying that it was actually a big loss for Apple. The trial proved that Samsung (and others who Apple don't consider rivals) are doing exactly the same thing cheaper. Some of it seems really stupid, like if Samsung hadn't used the same colours as Apple for buttons then it wouldn't have been valid!

It did seem a bit desperate claiming that having a rectangular screen was copying etc, Ericcsson should sue Apple for using electric power for mobile phones....


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 1, 2012)

elbows said:


> Apple were never going to be able to maintain that sort of innovation. To see why we need to explore what is meant by innovation of this kind, and its cyclic nature.
> 
> Apple eventually won gushing praise for innovation with the iPhone because a series of hardware improvements came of age, and Apple were able to apply them to a segment where progress had fallen well below what could be achieved when a fresh player entered the market with high expectations.
> 
> ...



It all starts and ends with the system, it's the framework and corporate circumstance which gives rise to this behavior, it being Apple (it's not like Samsung are innocent either given the amount of silly suits they bring) is immaterial. It can just as easily be another company so focusing solely on them is a distraction. Of course it's a convenient smokescreen for the usual tedious tech bloggers but they're not interested in serving the interests of us consumers, they're interested in their SEO rankings, web traffic and profit margins...

If people really want to get angry about patents take a look at the medical industry also...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 1, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> I read something about this the other day saying that it was actually a big loss for Apple. The trial proved that Samsung (and others who Apple don't consider rivals) are doing exactly the same thing cheaper. Some of it seems really stupid, like if Samsung hadn't used the same colours as Apple for buttons then it wouldn't have been valid!
> 
> It did seem a bit desperate claiming that having a rectangular screen was copying etc, Ericcsson should sue Apple for using electric power for mobile phones....



There's been a couple interesting pieces along the lines of a billion dollar fine being a small price to pay for the success Samsung have enjoyed off the back of Apple. I don't think it's too far fetched to see that Samsung made the calculation that any law suit would be a price worth paying if they could skank their way to high profit margins.

More broadly the big winner here isn't Apple, Samsung or even Google (who've been playing the hidden hand providing Samsung legal support and other resources to fight Apple along with paying off a bunch of bloggers to report favorably). The big winner will be Microsoft. All those other phone makers (LG and HTC are two that come to mind) that can't afford to get sued by Apple will now be seriously thinking about licensing Windows 8. Hell even Samsung is releasing a Windows 8 phone!

Pragmatically speaking, if Microsoft gain a decent third place market share at the expense of Android losing a third or half of its I think that would be a good outcome for the market, consumers and those that genuinely believe in competition and innovation.

To be clear for those that can't understand the above; I want three maybe four phone OSes, I want choice and I want competition between them all to bring down prices and raise innovation.


----------



## biggus dickus (Sep 1, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> There's been a couple interesting pieces along the lines of a billion dollar fine being a small price to pay for the success Samsung have enjoyed off the back of Apple. I don't think it's too far fetched to see that Samsung made the calculation that any law suit would be a price worth paying if they could skank their way to high profit margins.
> 
> More broadly the big winner here isn't Apple, Samsung or even Google (who've been playing the hidden hand providing Samsung legal support and other resources to fight Apple along with paying off a bunch of bloggers to report favorably). The big winner will be Microsoft. All those other phone makers (LG and HTC are two that come to mind) that can't afford to get sued by Apple will now be seriously thinking about licensing Windows 8. Hell even Samsung is releasing a Windows 8 phone!
> 
> ...


 
I don't know if it is 'skanking' them. I mean everyone knows that Apple add loads of extra cost just for the brand name. This thing actually reminds me a bit of Microsoft back in the days of the paperclip when they were really aggressive towards things that were just better and cheaper than what they could do

I should dig out the article, it made another comparison which was the big case against Napster which got into the news outside of the technology news. In the end the record companies won the case and closed Napster down, but to do that they had to prove that people were making it much easier and cheaper to sell music than they could do with their monopolies and it just wasn't fair....


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 1, 2012)




----------



## yield (Sep 1, 2012)

Apple might give Samsung the shove it needs
FT. 29 August, 2012


> The irony of being seen as the scrappy challenger is that at home in South Korea, chaebol conglomerates such as Samsung are viewed as being too dominant. As December’s presidential election nears, chaebol-bashing has become de rigueur. Even the ruling Conservative party of Lee Myung-bak, which has always had close relations with the chaebol – Mr Lee himself used to be chairman of Hyundai Engineering and Construction – has suggested their power needs curbing. “They need to attack chaebol to get elected,” says Choi Byung-il, head of the Korea Economic Research Institute.
> 
> Some Koreans blame chaebol for exacerbating the wealth gap by squeezing suppliers too hard. South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission says their dominance also harms consumers. In 2010 it found 3,500 cases of price-fixing. Daniel Tudor, author of Korea: The Impossible Country, a forthcoming book, compares chaebol to tall trees beneath whose canopy nothing else can grow. Enormous conglomerates were nurtured as national champions under the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee, who ruled until 1979. That helped South Korea’s warp-speed development. But, Mr Tudor argues, that “a totally chaebol-dominated economy” is no longer suited to a country with higher per capita wealth than the European average on a purchasing power parity basis.
> 
> Samsung, which began as a small noodle business in 1938, is now a behemoth. Companies linked to the group, of which Samsung Electronics is just one, make up about a quarter of the Kospi share index. There’s Samsung Heavy, which builds oil tankers, Samsung Everland, which runs a theme park and a zoo, and Samsung Life Insurance, which can presumably insure you against the possibility of being mauled by one of Samsung Everland’s lions.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 4, 2012)

Samsung innovates for the lulz

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sa...llion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cent-coins/


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 4, 2012)

It's a hoax, even if it wasn't Apple could decline the payment.



> "There is... no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."


http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 4, 2012)

Old news too...


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2012)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 4, 2012)

?


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2012)

And so it drags on, with consumer choice likely to be the real loser.



> Judge says HTC patents probably valid, could stifle iPhone 5 in US
> 
> HTC's chairperson Cher Wang wasn't kidding around when she said her company had "no intentions" of settling with Apple after Samsung was handed a defeat in their patent lawsuit against the iPhone maker.
> The Taiwanese manufacturer is continuing to pursue legal action, as HTC believes Apple is violating two of their patents regarding LTE technology.
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 11, 2012)

Apparently Samsong are gearing up to sue Apple if the new iPhone has LTE. Swings and roundabouts really at this point...


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2012)

And Apple have found someone else to bully — a Polish grocery chain.


> The tech giant is accusing A.pl of copying its logo and brand icons to confuse customers, according to a Reuters report. The Polish patent office told Reuters that Apple had filed a complaint on Tuesday. However, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski told Reuters that Apple’s claim is “ludicrous.” A date for the hearing has not yet been set.
> http://mashable.com/2012/09/11/apple-polish-grocer/


Yes, these really look like the Apple logo. 









http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09...sh-online-supermarket-trademarking-name-a-pl/


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2012)

Has this been posted? Is it true?
Samsung pays Apple $1 Billion sending 30 trucks full of 5 cent coins
http://www.atlnightspots.com/samsung-pays-apple-1-billion-sending-30-trucks-full-5-cent-coins/


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 12, 2012)

Of course its not true...


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2012)

Well, the new iPhone has LTE and apparently Samsung own a bucketload of those patents, so looks like plane takes off shortly.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 12, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Of course its not true...



Yep it's not pretty ancient news that it wasn't true...


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2012)

What the....?


----------



## Structaural (Sep 13, 2012)




----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2012)

Yeah, the Nano is just like it. Except it's a totally different shape. And has an entirely different shaped screen (square vs rectangular). And it doesn't have the different colour plastic part at the bottom. Or any buttons.

Apart from that, they're identical.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 13, 2012)

No wonder no-one talks to you. You weird head-slapper.

Also here's an old Samsung MP3 player from 2007 I think:


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2012)

> I can't believe Nokia stole the new nano design a full year before it was revealed! Tune up the lawyers, Apple.



http://www.bgr.com/2012/09/13/apple-nokia-design-stolen-ipod-nano-lumia/


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2012)

editor said:


> Well, the new iPhone has LTE and apparently Samsung own a bucketload of those patents, so looks like plane takes off shortly.


Your link gives us this gem (which may have been accidentally):


> The companies are fighting bitterly on many, but in effect are very interconnected. More than a quarter of the components in the last generation of the iPhone are supplied to Apple by Samsung manufacturing facilities.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 13, 2012)

Structaural said:


>


 
Woohoo another crappy law suite to bore everyone to death with for the next six months!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 13, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Your link gives us this gem (which may have been accidentally):



Does that mean Samsung can sue Apple for using components they sold to them?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Does that mean Samsung can sue Apple for using components they sold to them?


I don't know what any of it means any more.  I fear a smartphone legal event horizon that will swallow all companies whole, leaving us once again using these:


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 13, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I don't know what any of it means any more.  I fear a smartphone legal event horizon that will swallow all companies whole, leaving us once again using these:



Lol true.


----------



## RaverDrew (Sep 14, 2012)




----------



## Verbatim (Sep 14, 2012)

Indeed.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 15, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


>


 



don't forget to add this little snippet from wikipedia



> *Cowon iAUDIO CW100*
> 
> In October 2000, South Korean software company Cowon Systems released their first MP3 player, the CW100, under the brand name iAUDIO. Ironically, Cowon would later be accused for 'stealing' the 'i-prefix' from Apple, despite the iAUDIO brand being launched one year prior to the first iPod model and aimed exclusively at the Korean market.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2012)

Gotta love the way that even after getting hammered in the courts, Samsung still likes to try and wind up Apple in their home country.






"Totally different plug"


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2012)

Apple reportedly now seeking $3B in damages from Samsung


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2012)

And the shite continues to flow.
Samsung set to add Apple's iPhone 5 to its lawsuits alleging patent infrigement


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2012)

Apple may be in trouble for stealing the looks of the swiss railway clock.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20...s-says-apple-copied-its-iconic-railway-clock/


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2012)

Another ridiculous patent claim is booted out of a European court. 
German court rules that Motorola, Samsung don't violate Apple touch event patent


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2012)

That daft apology may still be forthcoming:


> Apple looking to escape 'Galaxy Tab didn't copy iPad' ads
> Wants to avoid embarrassing admission
> Apple and Samsung are back in the High Court in London as the former looks to escape a court order forcing it to publicly admit that the Galaxy Tab did not copy the iPad.
> 
> ...


http://www.techradar.com/news/mobil...escape-galaxy-tab-didnt-copy-ipad-ads-1101144


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2012)

And they're off again: 


> Samsung files lawsuit against Apple over latest iPhone
> SEOUL | Mon Oct 1, 2012 11:19pm EDT
> (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics said on Tuesday that it filed a new lawsuit against Apple Inc in a U.S. court, contending the iPhone 5 infringed on Samsung's patents.
> In a statement, Samsung said: "...we have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights."
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-samsung-iphone-idUSBRE89103C20121002


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Apple may be in trouble for stealing the looks of the swiss railway clock.
> 
> http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20...s-says-apple-copied-its-iconic-railway-clock/



Anything more on this? Reckon they'll drop the allegation once Apple offer that a fat wad of settlement cash.:d


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2012)

Just to clarify all of those phones are shit ^^


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2012)

sorry were shit, i had a p700, bane of my fucking life


----------



## Winot (Oct 3, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Anything more on this? Reckon they'll drop the allegation once Apple offer that a fat wad of settlement cash.:d



It would be interesting to know more about exactly what IP rights are claimed in the clock face.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 3, 2012)

Winot said:


> It would be interesting to know more about exactly what IP rights are claimed in the clock face.



Indeed.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 3, 2012)

Trademark, I presume.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2012)

They ripped off a decades old iconic design, but Apple are very fortunate that the trademark owners aren't as money grabbing and litigious as them.


> Apple, which recently introduced the latest version of its mobile operating system, redesigned the clock in iOS 6. But SBB says it owns the trademark to the design. The SBB clock was created in 1944 by then-SBB employee Hans Hilfiker. It's used throughout the railway system and is also licensed to Mondaine, a Swiss watch maker.
> 
> In the AFP article, an SBB spokeswoman dismissed claims the company was seeking financial compensation from Apple, saying SBB did not intend to "upset them by asking for money."
> 
> ...


----------



## sim667 (Oct 3, 2012)

My real names sim. Who coined the term 'SIM' for a sim card, I am entitled to cash monies!


----------



## Winot (Oct 3, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Trademark, I presume.


 
Well they've got a Swiss registration for the 3D clock shown below (no. 512830) but I can't find anything on the EU/International Register.  And copyright may well have expired (as the design has been 'industrialised').  So it may well be that they couldn't stop Apple outside of Switzerland anyway


----------



## Structaural (Oct 4, 2012)

Looks like the Dutch also took inspiration from the Swiss clock, though not an exact copy unlike Apple


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 5, 2012)

2 pieces of news from the Samsung corner... seconds out, round 2:
*Samsung claims Apple jury foreman LIED to get REVENGE*

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/04/samsung_claims_jury_foreman_lied/

*Samsung puts quarterly profit at record high again*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121005/as-skorea-earns-samsung-electronics/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 5, 2012)

Structaural said:


> Looks like the Dutch also took inspiration from the Swiss clock, though not an exact copy unlike Apple



That's probably enough to sue on though...


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> 2 pieces of news from the Samsung corner... seconds out, round 2:
> *Samsung claims Apple jury foreman LIED to get REVENGE*
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/04/samsung_claims_jury_foreman_lied/


They might have a point. 


> Yet Samsung claims Hogan's self-admitted feelings about the trial indicate otherwise. During jury selection, it notes, when asked if he had "strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws," Hogan said nothing. But in an interview following the verdict, he told Reuters that he didn't think companies should be allowed to infringe intellectual property and that he "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist."


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 5, 2012)

I heard a radio interview with the boss of the swiss railway company. He said that they wouldn't make a lawsuit but just wanted recognition from apple of where the design originated. He sounded very degnified and humble. Aplle would be well advised to take more inspiration from them than the "look and feel" of their clock, imo.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 5, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> I heard a radio interview with the boss of the swiss railway company. He said that they wouldn't make a lawsuit but just wanted recognition from apple of where the design originated. He sounded very degnified and humble. Aplle would be well advised to take more inspiration from them than the "look and feel" of their clock, imo.



So huge settlement agreed then.


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> I heard a radio interview with the boss of the swiss railway company. He said that they wouldn't make a lawsuit but just wanted recognition from apple of where the design originated. He sounded very degnified and humble. Aplle would be well advised to take more inspiration from them than the "look and feel" of their clock, imo.


Yep. Except they won't.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 5, 2012)

editor said:


> They might have a point.


The quote from him about the case being the highpoint of his career says it all really. What the fuck does doing jury service have to do with his career?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2012)

Another interesting snippet about the US trial:


> So it looks like Samsung might not have tried to copy the iPhone
> *Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone.*
> 
> Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 8, 2012)

There's an utterly depressing piece n the NY Times about the whole patent debacle. It makes for interesting reading though, e.g.:


> The application by Apple that eventually became patent 8,086,604 first crossed desks at the Patent and Trademark Office on a winter day in 2004.
> 
> In the next two years, a small cast of officials spent about 23 hours — the time generally allotted for reviewing a new application — examining the three dozen pages before recommending rejection. The application, for a voice- and text-based search engine, was “an obvious variation” on existing ideas, a patent examiner named Raheem Hoffler wrote. Over the next five years, Apple modified and resubmitted the application eight times — and each time it was rejected by the patent office.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

The US patent system just keeps on getting more broken:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 12, 2012)

So the clock thing's now settled.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/apple-inc-aapl-allowed-to-use-swiss-rail-clock-design-on-ios-6/


> The Swiss Federal Railway made the following statement on Friday , “It is a design icon that has obviously lost none of its appeal in the digital age. It symbolizes the innovation and reliability that are key qualities attributed to both SBB and Switzerland as a whole.”
> Perhaps, the SBB recognizes Apple’s appeal and innovation, which made them want to work with, rather than against the company.  Or maybe they know Apple’s history in litigation and they just didn’t want to risk losing money in a counter suit.


Apple should "look and feel" suitably embarrassed... but, I somehow don't think they will be.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

They're probably more scared of a countersuit where |Apple would no doubt manage to convince a US court that they'd invented the clock.

Talking of which, Apple's shitty ban on the Nexus in the US has been overturned.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busi...t+skirmish+against+Samsung/7376868/story.html


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 12, 2012)

editor said:


> There's an utterly depressing piece n the NY Times about the whole patent debacle. It makes for interesting reading though, e.g.:


Jeezus, that's fucking ridiculous.
So basically, someone could file an aspirational patent today for a "time machine" : "to travel from one point in time to another".
Then if someone develops such a machine they'll get screwed in the courts for having the audacity to spend decades and a fortune on realising it.


----------



## Winot (Oct 12, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> Jeezus, that's fucking ridiculous.
> So basically, someone could file an aspirational patent today for a "time machine" : "to travel from one point in time to another".
> Then if someone develops such a machine they'll get screwed in the courts for having the audacity to spend decades and a fortune on realising it.



No, that's not how it works. You basically only get a priority date once you've taught someone how to put the idea into practice.  Known as "sufficiency" in Europe and "enablement" or "reduction to practice" in the US.

It's a pretty good article though.


----------



## Winot (Oct 12, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> So the clock thing's now settled.
> http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/apple-inc-aapl-allowed-to-use-swiss-rail-clock-design-on-ios-6/
> 
> Apple should "look and feel" suitably embarrassed... but, I somehow don't think they will be.



As I noted above, it's not clear what rights SBB have outside of Switzerland (they may have rights, but I couldn't find them).


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 12, 2012)

Winot said:


> As I noted above, it's not clear what rights SBB have outside of Switzerland (they may have rights, but I couldn't find them).


Whether SBB has world wide "rights" for the design or not is irrelevant. Apple have shown that with expensive law firms and a partial juries, they can ride rough shot over rights.
The relevance here is that this case shows Apple to be complete hypocrites and that they've lost their rights to play the moral high-ground card.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 12, 2012)

It's not irrelevant, it's the entire point!


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not irrelevant, it's the entire point!


As I mentioned in an earlier post, the director of SSB said he'd never persue taking apple to court, so it was pointless that they'd obtain rights to the design. That's the irrelevance.
_My_ point is, that Apple got caught with their pants down in being found out for blatantly ripping a design off, not a month after gloating on the steps outside of a court room about winning a $billion "look and feel" patent infringement case.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 13, 2012)

I don't see what the point is supposed to mean. Apple did something that nobody challenged vs Samsung did something which Apple challenged and won?


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't see what the point is supposed to mean.


That Apple are hypocrites and have no moral grounding.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 13, 2012)

Saying "we didn't illegally copy this" and also "Samsung illegally copied our stuff" isn't a hypocritical position, whether you agree with them or not on those points.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

There are billions of ways to represent a clock-face.
Apple copy. Basta!


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

Winot said:


> As I noted above, it's not clear what rights SBB have outside of Switzerland (they may have rights, but I couldn't find them).


 





https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/faces/jsp/trademark/sr30.jsp


----------



## Winot (Oct 13, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/faces/jsp/trademark/sr30.jsp



Yes - that's the Swiss registration I found earlier (post #322). I'm interested in whether they have any rights *outside* Switzerland.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

With Apples multitude of design talent I'd expect them to come up with something more original rather than copying and dancing around the greyzone that is international patent law.
And that goes for rectangular touch screen devices with rounded edges as well as clock faces.


----------



## Winot (Oct 13, 2012)

This isn't really a grey zone - SBB either have rights or they don't. 

I agree that Apple shouldn't have copied though.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 13, 2012)

Winot said:


> This isn't really a grey zone - SBB either have rights or they don't.


OK, in the SBB case _the law_ may not have grey zones but, getting back on topic: In the Apple vs Samsung case, the laws were being interpreted differently by both company's lawers' to influence the jury's verdict. Central to Apple's accusations was the public's general impression of the products i.e: the "look and feel". Credible, empirical evidence of this type is difficult to provide as levels of subjective judgement are being made on the part of both public and jurors alike. This is the grey zone where the battle lines are being drawn.
Personally, I'd almost go as far as to say that the very concept of Intellectual Property in trade dress & prior art is de-facto a grey-zone.
But then there's always these black and white cases coming up, such as the clock face, that show how_ patently_ obvious copying can be.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't see what the point is supposed to mean. Apple did something that nobody challenged vs Samsung did something which Apple challenged and won?


That win may well turn into an 'unwin' if some reports are to be believed.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2012)

And so it goes on and on and on:



> Despite Apple winning more $1 billion (£664 million, AU$1.03 billion) of Samsung's money in its landmark patent dispute with the Korean company, both companies have kept the trial going with requests for more money and demands for entire _new_ trials.
> 
> But now Apple has hit a wall in its quest for an extra $535 million (£3.3 million, AU$514 million): the Cupertino tech giant wants to use financial documents containing "trade secrets" in its case against Samsung, and it wants to keep them secret while doing so.
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> Jeezus, that's fucking ridiculous.
> So basically, someone could file an aspirational patent today for a "time machine" : "to travel from one point in time to another".
> Then if someone develops such a machine they'll get screwed in the courts for having the audacity to spend decades and a fortune on realising it.


No duh, if you actually built a time machine you go back and fill a patent on the first day the patent office opened


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2012)

I'll be amazed if these humiliating adverts ever appear, but the judgement represents an almighty slap down for Apple.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

editor said:


> I'll be amazed if these humiliating adverts ever appear, but the judgement represents an almighty slap down for Apple.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750


I'd be amazed if the directors of Apple would want to risk contempt of court charges


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2012)

gosub said:


> I'd be amazed if the directors of Apple would want to risk contempt of court charges


But with near infinite cash reserves for slippery lawyers, 'justice' can usually be bought.


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

not out of potentially indefinite prison sentences they can't


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2012)

gosub said:


> not out of potentially indefinite prison sentences they can't


I'll be amazed if these adverts appear in the press.


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

only way round it is even higher appeal


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

It wouldnt surprise me to see the adverts but for Apple to try to be oh-so-clever about it and somehow use the ads to take the piss out of their competitors products.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2012)

gosub said:


> only way round it is even higher appeal


You mean..... God?


----------



## Winot (Oct 19, 2012)

editor said:


> You mean..... God?



Higher than that - Supreme Court.

I don't think there's any way round the judgement. It's pretty specific.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

Sounds like the rubber band bouncy scrolling patent might die:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding/


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

Apple lose again in Europe: Dutch court says Samsung does not infringe Apple patent


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2012)

And Apple lose once again, this time against Google/Motorola:
http://mashable.com/2012/11/05/apple-google-lawsuit-dismissed/


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2012)

Oh for fuck's sake Apple.


> *Apple is trying to add Android 4.1, Jelly Bean, and the Galaxy Note 10.1 to yet another patent infringement court case against Samsung in California.*
> 
> Apple argued yesterday that Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet and the Android 4.1 Jelly Bean operating system infringe on its patents and should be added to an existing California lawsuit against Samsung.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2012)

Apple finally gets its patent on a rectangle with rounded corners







Best user comment:







> Competition is healthy, but Sumerians should create their own original technology, not steal Apple’s.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 8, 2012)

tbh you should start a new thread everything something like this comes up


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> tbh you should start a new thread everything something like this comes up


You could be right. There's clearly not enough Apple related threads here.


----------



## Winot (Nov 9, 2012)

The comment on the Ars Technica page puts it well:



> I think most people don't understand what it means that this is a design patent - it's not the same thing as a "regular" patent (a utility patent). Design patents allow a company to get an exclusive right to the form of a functional object so that a 3rd party can't make a different device with identical appearance (well, not legally at least). Almost every company that puts the time into making a distinctive shape for their devices gets one: Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc.
> 
> Design patents are extremely narrow - you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement. Plus, they specifically cannot cover functionality - that has to be covered by a utility patent, if it's going to be protected. This design patent only protects a "portable display device" (that's the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures.
> 
> I'd be shocked if Apple hadn't applied for design patents for all of its devices. This really isn't an issue.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2012)

Apple have removed that childish bit of code in the 'apology.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...obscured-apology-removed-from-UK-website.html

Here's the full judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2012)

The UK court is furious with Apple's antics.


> Apple accused of dragging feet over Samsung court order
> _Judges furious over 'lackadaisical' compliance with order to publicise acknowledgements that South Korean firm did not infringe designs_
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/09/apple-critcised-samsung-court-order


----------



## Winot (Nov 9, 2012)

Robin Jacob is a star. Extremely clever judge and don't take no shit.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2012)

Another slapdown for Apple. They really have acted like a bunch of petulant twats over this.


> UK court orders Apple to pay Samsung's legal fees in full after 'false and misleading' notice
> 
> The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ordered Apple to pay the legal fees of competitor Samsung on an 'indemnity basis' after the company published a "false and misleading" notice in the wake of a patent lawsuit over the iPad. The judgement, intended to humiliate Apple, will require the company to pay for all expenses associated with Samsung's legal defense, with any disputes over the exact amount likely to be resolved in the latter firm's favor...
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2012)

Apple have paid up for stealing the Swiss clock design. 


> Not long after the launch of iOS 6, it came to the Internet’s attention that Apple’s clock design was rather familiar. In fact, it had been lifted straight from the Swiss National Railway. Apple agreed to pay up, but it wasn’t clear how much at the time. Now we know it was USD$21 million.
> 
> http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/apples-swiped-swiss-clock-design-cost-13-2-million/


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

And so it goes on zzzzzzzzzzz
*Court approves addition of iPhone 5, Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note to Samsung v. Apple lawsuit*


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2012)

So, a judge has forced Apple and HTC to hand over the terms of their agreement to Samsung.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 23, 2012)

> Apple and Samsung are the only two companies making serious profits in mobile, and mobile is the future of all personal computing. The stakes simply could not be higher — of course they’re going to sue the shit out of each other. - Jon Gruber


 
Says it all.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Nov 23, 2012)

It's all so terminally dull. I used to enjoy all the fanboy banter, but now it's just painful.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 23, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> It's all so terminally dull. I used to enjoy all the fanboy banter, but now it's just painful.


 
It ceased being funny a looooong time ago. But these are huge corporations which billions of dollars at stake, they're going to fight to the death on this as their very survival depends on it.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2012)

Sigh. Apple aren't doing very well outside the USA with this shit _at all_, so let's hope it continues to backfire on them and we can eventually hope for the companies to battle each other through features and innovation.



> Apple adds six Samsung products including Note II, S III mini and Galaxy Tab 2 to California lawsuit


----------



## editor (Dec 7, 2012)

Judge Koh has her head screwed on. Shame she can't just knock Apple and Samsung's heads together and put an end to this farce.



> In the latest episode of the Apple vs Samsung legal drama that’s been playing out in the U.S. district court of  Northern California, the pair met again at an appeal hearing on Thursday to argue their respective corners. Judge Lucy Koh is reviewing the jury’s $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung.
> Apple is hoping for a ban on the sale of Samsung devices the jury deemed infringe its patents when they returned their verdict back in August, while Samsung wants to reduce the damages award against it — or trigger a new trial.
> The judge made a plea for “global peace” between the warring gadget makers — who are also doing battle in other courtrooms around the world. “If there is any way this court can facilitate some sort of resolution, I’d like to do that,” the FT quotes Koh as saying. “I think it would be good for consumers and good for the industry.”
> 
> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/07/ap...crunch+(TechCrunch)&utm_content=Google+Reader


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2012)

One of Apple's multi touch patents is looking shaky:



> * U.S. patent office declares 'the Steve Jobs patent' entirely invalid on non-final basis*
> 
> For the second time in less than two months, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a first Office action tentatively declaring a key Apple multitouch patent invalid. In late October, a first Office action in a reexamination proceeding stated the preliminary conclusion that all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll bounce) patent are invalid. Back in August, a California jury held Samsung to infringe that patent, and according to interviews jurors gave later didn't make much of an effort to ascertain its validity. This week, the USPTO issued a first Office action rejecting all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 on a "touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics", which has been referred to by many people, including Apple's own lawyers, as "the Steve Jobs patent".


http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2012)

The judge delivers a big and thoroughly well deserved 'Fuck You' to Apple's attempts to ban a load of Samsung products off US shelves.

Lucy Koh is a very sensible woman indeed.



> *A US judge has rejected Apple's plea to ban sales of Samsung's smartphones that violate its patents.*
> Apple had requested the ban after a jury ruled earlier this year that some Samsung products had infringed Apple's patents.
> 
> Samsung was also ordered to pay $1.05bn (£650m) in damages, a ruling the South Korean firm has since challenged.
> ...


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2012)

Apple wanted 26 Samsung smartphones banned permanently from sale in the US.


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2012)

So after a key patent Samsung was found to be infringing was tentatively found to be invalid, Samsung is not unexpectedly arguing that its damages should therefore be reduced by $600 million.

But Apple insists that it should now get an _additional_ $536 million in damages instead! 

http://bgr.com/2012/12/19/apple-seeks-extra-half-billion-in-samsung-case-despite-invalidated-patent-259243/

Oh, and Apple have just had another major patent rejected.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2013)

And it's yet another court room loss for Apple and their shitty attempts to ban the competition.


> *Another Legal Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Concurs With U.K. Ruling That Samsung Galaxy Tablets Do Not Infringe iPad’s Design*
> Today the Hague district court judgment in a case of Samsung against Apple. At issue in this case is whether the design of some of Samsung Galaxy tablets infringe a design right from Apple. The court believes that there is no question of an infringement.
> 
> The court refers to British law which the court already had found the same two instances on the same infringement question.


Here's Samsung's response: 


> e welcome the court’s decision, which reaffirmed decisions made by courts in other countries that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple’s registered design right. We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.


http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/16/an...-galaxy-tablets-do-not-infringe-ipads-design/


----------



## pesh (Jan 16, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> It's all so terminally dull. I used to enjoy all the fanboy banter, but now it's just painful.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2013)

Mind you, nothing is quite as dull as an empty post devoid of any opinion.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2013)

In what might hopefully be the end of this particular saga (please!), Apple have failed to extract any more money out of Samsung in the US:


> Judge: Samsung didn't 'willfully' infringe Apple patents
> U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh handed down some of her first post-trial rulings from the much publicized Apple v. Samsung patent case this evening.
> 
> In a 32-page order filed today, the judge said she predominantly agreed with the jury's decision that Samsung infringed on seven of Apple's design and utility patents. However, she disagreed with one finding -- that Samsung "willfully" infringed on Apple's patents.
> ...


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57566573-37/judge-samsung-didnt-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2013)

Now here's a turn up for the books: 
Judge cuts damages owed Apple down to $598 million in Samsung trial


> Judge Lucy Koh has just delivered a serious blow to Cupertino in the Apple v. Samsung legal saga, cutting the damages awarded to the company down to $598,908,892 — and ordering a retrial to determine new damages for the remaining balance.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 2, 2013)

Now that's the kinda judgment that could land a bod a plush job with EITHER of them!


----------



## editor (May 15, 2013)

Apple to add Galaxy S4 to second Samsung patent infringement lawsuit


----------



## editor (May 23, 2013)

And now they're trying to sue over Google Now. You know, the thing that's twice as innovative anything they've come up with recently. 

http://androidcommunity.com/apple-claiming-google-now-infringes-on-siri-patents-20130522/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 9, 2013)

Novelty for this type of 'news' really has worn thin, even the tech blogs can't be bothered with it like they used too....


----------

