or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung stalls, accuses Apple of doctoring evidence in US iPhone, iPad copying case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung stalls, accuses Apple of doctoring evidence in US iPhone, iPad copying case

post #1 of 142
Thread Starter 
In addition to legal action occurring in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, Apple also continues its case against Samsung in the US, where its partner and rival is working to delay the case until 2013 while fighting Apple's iPhone patents with F/RAND encumbered counterclaims.

Apple's US patent infringement claims against Samsung began in April, when the iPad maker asserted infringement of 8 patents related to the design and functionality of the iPhone and iPad, specifically targeting Samsung's Galaxy, Nexus and Epic 4G smartphones and its Galaxy Tab tablet.

Samsung quickly fired back with a suit of its own involving 12 patents that "relate to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products."

When Apple filed for an expedited trial, Samsung dismissed its own case and added its patent claims to Apple's original action as counterclaims, something Apple now complains was simply an effort to bog down the legal proceedings, according to a report by Edible Apple.

"Seeking to obfuscate and delay Apples claims," the company stated in an Initial Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed with week, "Samsung filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 30 and brought counterclaims based on twelve disparate patents that are unrelated to the subject matter of Apples patents.

"These twelve patents, seven of which purportedly pertain to public wireless communications standards, raise numerous legal, factual, and technical issues that are completely unrelated to Apples claims and should be severed and set for trial on a separate track. Samsung itself does not believe that its claims require quick resolution, because it unlike Apple has not moved for expedited relief."

F/RAND of a frenemy

Apple maintains the Samsung's standards-related patents, much like those held by Nokia and Motorola, are F/RAND encumbered patents that have already been committed to "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing terms.

The report notes that Apple "accuses Samsung of wielding their patents unfairly and in ways that run afoul of contract and antitrust law," and therefore asks that the unrelated and thorny issues related to these F/RAND patents that Samsung wants to mix together with its own design patent issues instead be separated into a separate legal track.

Samsung calls iPhone, iPad design "common, functional and obvious"

In its defense, Samsung describes itself as having been in the mobile industry far longer than Apple, and the innovator of a variety of smartphone advances, including the introduction of the first phone slimmer than a centimeter back in 2001.

Samsung also complains that Apple seeks to prevent it from using "common, functional, obvious and otherwise unprotectable elements of design patents, trademarks and trade dress, rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung."

Samsung took particular issue with elements of the composite design Apple has used to describe its iPhone and iPad, including the use of rounded corners and rounded boxes for app icons, the use of a yellow legal pad to represent notes and the gears icon Apple uses for its Settings app.

Samsung further requests that the Court cancel Apples allegedly registered trademarks and trade dress, in addition to declarations of invalidity for all asserted IP, including the utility and design patents. The company also defends its counterclaim filing of F/RAND patents by saying it would conserve resources of both parties and the Court.



Samsung claims Apple "doctors evidence"

In its US filings, Samsung also provided an overview of Apple's other legal actions against it worldwide, portraying Apple as filing nonsensical legal requests and presenting falsified evidence.

"In Australia," Samsung wrote, "Apple erroneously moved to enjoin the sale of a version of the Galaxy Tablet Samsung never planned to release in Australia. To avoid wasting the resources of the Court or the parties on a device that Samsung would not even be selling in Australia, Apple and Samsung entered into an agreement in which Samsung would not release the U.S. version of the tablet in that countrywhich it had never intended to do."

In reality, Samsung refused to present Apple or the court in Australia with details of the Galaxy Tab it did plan to sell in Australia, so Apple based its case on the currently selling models Samsung markets in the US and South Korea.

"In Germany," the company added, "Apple secretly filed for an injunction, without any notice to Samsung, and with reportedly doctored evidence. After initially entering the injunction, the German court reversed itself and has since allowed sales of the Galaxy Tab to resume throughout Europe, with the exception of Germany itself. Samsung is challenging the remaining limited portion of the injunction and expect it to likewise be overturned."

Here, Samsung takes a clearly false claim it issued as public relations damage control (a debunked insistence that it was blindsided by Apple's injunction request in Germany), adds in an equally phony claim about "reportedly" doctored evidence, and delivers both to the US court as facts in its legal filings.



Apple asks for quick resolution to stop future Samsung clones in the US

Apple maintains that Samsung's F/RAND claims must be removed from its case because it has an urgent need for relief and that continued copying by Samsung will "erode the distinctiveness of core Apple products."

"New infringing Samsung products are rapidly entering the U.S. market," Apple stated. "Samsung has stated that it will make a 'major new product announcement' at the end of this month. All indications are that Samsung will announce the U.S. release of its next generation Galaxy S2 smartphone. Apple understands that a new infringing Samsung tablet, called the Tab 8.9, is also coming. Apple needs early adjudication of its claims so it can put a stop to Samsungs copying of Apples designs and technology now."

Apple added, "By any measure, combining Apples claims and Samsungs claims would make the case too large and too complex for any single jury. The technologies are varied. The legal issues, including Apples antitrust counterclaims, are many [] Urgency and logic dictate that the cases be split as Apple has proposed."

Apple seeks to schedule an expedited trial for its claims affecting Samsung's alleged patent infringements by March 7, 2012, with Samsung's claims being heard June 21, 2013. Samsung wants a composite trial covering both disputes to be delayed until at least March 2013, which would provide the company with another full year and two complete holiday seasons to continue sales of its Galaxy products. A ruling on the dispute is scheduled for August 24.
post #2 of 142
If the design was obvious, why didn't Windows tablets look like the iPad until the iPad came along?
post #3 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In addition to legal action occurring in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, Apple also continues its case against Samsung in the US, where its partner and rival is working to delay the case until 2013 while fighting Apple's iPhone patents with F/RAND encumbered counterclaims. ...

On the one hand this is the very first time I've heard Sansung making actual, concrete arguments that might make sense (the "ordinariness" of the individual elements), on the other hand, a lot of the other stuff is just pathetic. It seems like they are actually reading the comments section on BGR or something to get ammunition for what should be a serious legal effort.

The addition of the "doctored evidence" claims is particularly stupid. If idiotic tech blogs didn't waste time talking about these things we wouldn't hear about them at all. The very idea that copying a design, but reducing all measurements in the horizontal or vertical dimension by 1/6th, makes it suddenly "not a copy" is patently ridiculous. I just don't' see that argument as having any legal weight whatsoever, even if Apple didn't also lay out the exact dimensions of all the devices (which they also do).

Samsung's legal team sounds really amateurish most of the time and moves like that smack of desperation.
post #4 of 142
Claims of doctored evidence are absurd. If you actually look at the claims that Apple is making and the legal doctrines they are based on then the supposed doctoring is not relevant. It is not relevant if the iPhone is the same size as the Galaxy phone. What is relevant is whether a consumer could easily and does easily mistake one for the other. And since the consumer is unlikely to notice a marginal difference in size between the devices, Apple's filings that may have resized the Samsung products in order to prove a point are not of any diminished value because they have been resized.

Focusing on size would be like saying its okay for a competitor to make an exact copy of the iPhone as long as its not the exact same size of the Apple iPhone. Clearly this is not true. It matters only whether the likeness of the device is similar enough to cause confusion.
post #5 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

If the design was obvious, why didn't Windows tablets look like the iPad until the iPad came along?

because capacitive screens (in the size and responsiveness required for a tablet device) is still a Very new technology, at least when you are talking consumer viable products. Resistive screens require certain design considerations. Not to mention most tablet devices before this point were very business focused (thus the exaggerated bezel, hand grips, etc) they were meant for people out in the field more than for people in an office, or a consumer in their home.

Thin, minimalist "slate" devices are new to "real" tech because of those limitations, but they existed in Sci fi 23 years ago (star trek) and in 1994 as a "digital newspaper" concept, and (I'm sure) countless other design ideas. resistive screens required things like buttons and toggles for quick access, but the industry was moving that way.

Yes, apple made the first tablet with that form factor as a production model. But the design IS obvious and functional.
post #6 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

If the design was obvious, why didn't Windows tablets look like the iPad until the iPad came along?

Exactly the same reason as to why you didn't go to space for holidays till now (and probably never will :>)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Claims of doctored evidence are absurd. If you actually look at the claims that Apple is making and the legal doctrines they are based on then the supposed doctoring is not relevant. It is not relevant if the iPhone is the same size as the Galaxy phone. What is relevant is whether a consumer could easily and does easily mistake one for the other. And since the consumer is unlikely to notice a marginal difference in size between the devices, Apple's filings that may have resized the Samsung products in order to prove a point are not of any diminished value because they have been resized.

Focusing on size would be like saying its okay for a competitor to make an exact copy of the iPhone as long as its not the exact same size of the Apple iPhone. Clearly this is not true. It matters only whether the likeness of the device is similar enough to cause confusion.

How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?

Yeah, exactly because then no unbiased judge would rule in favor of Apple, because it's simply another phone :>
post #7 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

On the one hand this is the very first time I've heard Sansung making actual, concrete arguments that might make sense (the "ordinariness" of the individual elements), on the other hand, a lot of the other stuff is just pathetic. It seems like they are actually reading the comments section on BGR or something to get ammunition for what should be a serious legal effort.

The addition of the "doctored evidence" claims is particularly stupid. If idiotic tech blogs didn't waste time talking about these things we wouldn't hear about them at all. The very idea that copying a design, but reducing all measurements in the horizontal or vertical dimension by 1/6th, makes it suddenly "not a copy" is patently ridiculous. I just don't' see that argument as having any legal weight whatsoever, even if Apple didn't also lay out the exact dimensions of all the devices (which they also do).

Samsung's legal team sounds really amateurish most of the time and moves like that smack of desperation.

This is DED paraphrasing the legal team. Pretty sure what they actually said is in legalese. It's impossible for DED to see anyone not from Cupertino as having a valid argument and he writes his "articles" as such.

When you have a community design, something that hinges on an "informed" user being confused between the two, changing the aspect ratio and comparing the "main screen" of the iphone to the "app screen" of an android device (which is rarely if ever, used in promotions or sales material) is dishonest. If Samsung is clearly copying (and I think Apple has an argument with Touchwiz) they shouldn't have to resort to warping pictures to exaggerate the effect.
post #8 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupidhero View Post


How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?

Yeah, exactly because then no unbiased judge would rule in favor of Apple, because it's simply another phone :>

can you think of any reason at all that would make that relevant? You believe it is ok they copied Apples design on this part because they put it in a drawer?
post #9 of 142
Message to Apple: Let it go...move on...you already have about 95% of the tablet market. Why are you fighting so much for the remaining 5%? Yeah, I know....you have every right to protect your inventions.....but jeez, maybe you should wait until there are real competitors out there so that the Feds don't regulate this market as a monopoly.
post #10 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

because capacitive screens (in the size and responsiveness required for a tablet device) is still a Very new technology, at least when you are talking consumer viable products. Resistive screens require certain design considerations. Not to mention most tablet devices before this point were very business focused (thus the exaggerated bezel, hand grips, etc) they were meant for people out in the field more than for people in an office, or a consumer in their home.

Thin, minimalist "slate" devices are new to "real" tech because of those limitations, but they existed in Sci fi 23 years ago (star trek) and in 1994 as a "digital newspaper" concept, and (I'm sure) countless other design ideas. resistive screens required things like buttons and toggles for quick access, but the industry was moving that way.

Yes, apple made the first tablet with that form factor as a production model. But the design IS obvious and functional.

Design includes implementation. Its not enough to draw a device and say you designed it. Apple was the first company to design and build such a device, thus they can argue that the design is theirs.
post #11 of 142
I'm totally digging this Pravda throwback site. Man, those were the days.

My favourite part of DED's lastest masterpiece is the claim that Apple doctored the photos to be "equally phony", when it's undeniably obvious that it was altered for the purposes of looking more similar to the iPad 2.

Keep up the great work. If you add just a little bit more personality to these kinds of posts, The Onion may have a position for you, DED.
post #12 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupidhero View Post

How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?

Irrelevant. If the app drawer looks like the iPhone home screen then its still a copy. Naturally Apple is going to make their evidence as convincing as possible, but the methods they are using are not inappropriate and don't change the issue itself.
post #13 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Design includes implementation. Its not enough to draw a device and say you designed it. Apple was the first company to design and build such a device, thus they can argue that the design is theirs.

So you're saying that if I draw a picture of a really awesome advertisement, and apple sees that and implements it, they can use it, without attribution, without payment, and then sue ANYONE ELSE who wants to do the same thing?

And as our messed up patent law proves, you don't need to "implement" something for it to be considered yours.
post #14 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Irrelevant. If the app drawer looks like the iPhone home screen then its still a copy.

So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.

Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.
post #15 of 142
I have a real problem with the professionalism of the journalism in this article, although I take no position on the dispute.

Paragraph 17: "In reality, Samsung refused to present Apple or the court in Australia with details of the Galaxy Tab it did plan to sell in Australia ..." - Who makes this claim? Dilger? Some of the text in Apple's filing? An Apple spokesperson? Without attribution, this looks like an opinion stated by Dilger, the article's author. If so, the article no longer measures up to professional journalism reporting standards.

Paragraph 19: "Here, Samsung takes a clearly false claim it issued as public relations damage control (a debunked insistence that it was blindsided by Apple's injunction request in Germany), adds in an equally phony claim about "reportedly" doctored evidence, and delivers both to the US court as facts in its legal filings." - Same problem as Paragraph 17; where's the attribution?

And finally, does the failure to properly attribute these opinions result from simple sloppiness, or are they deliberate acts aimed at supporting Apple and maligning Samsung? Dilger - Apple Insider editors - your readers deserve an explanation.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #16 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

So you're saying that if I draw a picture of a really awesome advertisement, and apple sees that and implements it, they can use it, without attribution, without payment, and then sue ANYONE ELSE who wants to do the same thing?

And as our messed up patent law proves, you don't need to "implement" something for it to be considered yours.

You cannot compare design of an intangible concept with design of a tangible product. They are held to different standards.

Also, Apple is not making a patent argument.
post #17 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.

Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.

No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Apple's argument is that the design of Samsung's devices, as a whole, are purposefully similar to Apple's designs such that consumers would mistake one for the other. Its the entire package that matters, not specific icons, home screens etc.
post #18 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

You cannot compare design of an intangible concept with design of a tangible product. They are held to different standards.

Also, Apple is not making a patent argument.

Apple is making a trade dress argument. one saying that the design they have (hardware) is unique.

It's not. Again, see star trek

And this video from 1994:
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

Remember, we're talking HARDWARE here. Look at that tablet concept. Rounded corners, really thin, minimalist design (no buttons). Yes, the UI is different, but Samsung is arguing that the hardware design is something that is obvious.
post #19 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Apple's argument is that the design of Samsung's devices, as a whole, are purposefully similar to Apple's designs such that consumers would mistake one for the other. Its the entire package that matters, not specific icons, home screens etc.

So you're saying the average customer would confuse an iphone 4 with a Samsung transform?
post #20 of 142
Samsung's claim that they were ignorant of the German hearing where they lodged a letter a week before it happened is perjury.

I don't think US judges take too kindly to blatantly lying to the court.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #21 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Samsung's claim that they were ignorant of the German hearing where they lodged a letter a week before it happened is perjury.

I don't think US judges will take too kindly to blatantly lying to the court.

OK.. say someone is suing you in the US. You are also doing well in europe, does not not make sense to prep for a battle there?

The court Apple chose is the one that almost every patent dispute is funneled through because they favor patent holders over pretty much anything else. This is pretty well know in their legal circles (as even Florian pointed out). Apple is seeking an injunction in the US and in Australia, so it makes sense to be pre-emptive.

Those documents that came out also show that apple DID NOT inform Samsung that they filed for the injunction, and Samsung didn't have a chance to present their arguments during that case. The fact that they suspected it might be coming doesn't mean they committed "perjury"
post #22 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

So you're saying the average customer would confuse an iphone 4 with a Samsung transform?

Thats what Apple is saying, although I think they are limiting their argument to the Galaxy devices that have a similar form factor.
post #23 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

OK.. say someone is suing you in the US. You are also doing well in europe, does not not make sense to prep for a battle there?

The court Apple chose is the one that almost every patent dispute is funneled through because they favor patent holders over pretty much anything else. This is pretty well know in their legal circles (as even Florian pointed out). Apple is seeking an injunction in the US and in Australia, so it makes sense to be pre-emptive.

Those documents that came out also show that apple DID NOT inform Samsung that they filed for the injunction, and Samsung didn't have a chance to present their arguments during that case. The fact that they suspected it might be coming doesn't mean they committed "perjury"

Preparation for lawsuits arose after failed talks of partnering patent fees back in December. Try again. Samsung knew they were gearing up for a global legal battle back in December.
post #24 of 142
Trying to embarrass Apple leads to more pain . . . inflicted by Apple.

The courts, ITC, regulatory bodies, so many of them over the past decade, have investigated Apple in all manner of allegations, charges, etc. Nothing significant has ever come of them.

To think Apple does not know exactly what they're doing, with their current team, is pretty ridiculous. Apple will find a way around nearly everything because they are incredibly astute and clever, legally speaking.

The entity that needs to stop is Samsung. Apple already has the game figured out until the end. This might very well change in the future if Apple were under different management, who might have a different strategy. But for now, they're far too smart for the Samsungs of the world.

Samsung is already hurting in several key areas, and the law has already favoured Apple several times in this Apple-Samsung war.

The solution is for Apple's rivals (like Samsung) is to step up their game drastically. To shake up the industry. The old ways won't cut it anymore. Derivative devices just aren't enough because innovators like Apple *will* attempt to exercise their IP rights on those who are unable to differentiate themselves or who don't have strong first-mover status.

Samsung and everyone else had their chance to pull off a June 2007 or a January 2010. But the brand name attached to the iPhone and iPad is Apple, not Samsung.

This is what happens when you swim with an Apex Predator like Apple. Apple not only manages to achieve first-mover status when and where it counts, but also brings their values and philosophy to the game (the same values and philosophy no one else has.) This results in a killer combination. Add to that two key things: they patent whatever they can like crazy (smart thing to do) and then, knowing they have all the consumer mindshare and "innovator status" on their side, plus probably the best legal team in the biz, they set about enforcing their IP *wherever they can.*

This sort of activity is now par for the course. Culling of the tech herd. It's going to be brutal, and the wheat will get separated from the chaff. Some won't be able to hang in the game (like HP), and others will probably go in impressive directions and thrive. It might just take another Apple - maybe not in name, but in values, philosophy, motivation, leadership, and innovation. A tall order, but them's the breaks. That's the new reality.

Samsung and the rest are not facing a mere bully. That term is far too simplistic and crude. They are facing the smartest company in tech that seems to 1) know how to exercise their legal rights, and 2) are experts on how to take big risks and win - market risks and legal risks.

Best thing for Samsung and the rest to do: stop trying to fight Apple in the courts. Apple has no problem losing on small, manageable litigation - pay out this small entity or that small entity, etc. But on big litigation that they've got on "project status", fighting Apple is like rolling a large boulder uphill. It's possible to do it, but by the time you get there you'll be exhausted and thinking it probably wasn't worth it after all.

Cheers
post #25 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Preparation for lawsuits arose after failed talks of partnering patent fees back in December. Try again. Samsung knew they were gearing up for a global legal battle back in December.

And again, they knew it was likely they would be sued. Apple did not serve them notice of the actual filings, OR give them a chance to contest them before the injunction went through.
post #26 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Thats what Apple is saying, although I think they are limiting their argument to the Galaxy devices that have a similar form factor.

Apple is suing samsung over their entire android lineup.

For that matter why aren't they attacking Samsung over Bada? That's even more of a rip off of IOS because all it is is the Grid.
post #27 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Message to Apple: Let it go...move on...you already have about 95% of the tablet market. Why are you fighting so much for the remaining 5%? Yeah, I know....you have every right to protect your inventions.....but jeez, maybe you should wait until there are real competitors out there so that the Feds don't regulate this market as a monopoly.

If you look at what happened to Apple in the 80's and 90's, you'll see that they (Steve) isn't going to let that happen again. They took the initiative on a new "Post-PC" device, invested gobs of money into it, and they are not going to let others steal their IP this time around.
post #28 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Message to Apple: Let it go...move on...you already have about 95% of the tablet market. Why are you fighting so much for the remaining 5%? Yeah, I know....you have every right to protect your inventions.....but jeez, maybe you should wait until there are real competitors out there so that the Feds don't regulate this market as a monopoly.

IP theft by the likes of Samsung can quickly erode that 95% market share if left unchecked by Apple.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #29 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Apple is making a trade dress argument. one saying that the design they have (hardware) is unique.

It's not. Again, see star trek

And this video from 1994:
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

Remember, we're talking HARDWARE here. Look at that tablet concept. Rounded corners, really thin, minimalist design (no buttons). Yes, the UI is different, but Samsung is arguing that the hardware design is something that is obvious.

If it's obvious why did Samsung suddenly delay the launch of Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which they continued to launch as the 10.1v model in countries outside the US) AS SOON AS THE iPAD 2 was displayed then relaunched a closer copy?

...and what's with the 30 pin dock connector, I thought fandroids were more enamoured of a range of various ports such as HDMI and USB, which they continuously and monotonously used as an argument of Android's "superiority".

Why did Samsung suddenly make an ALMOST EXACT copy (for their Tab line) of something that Apple has used fairly exclusively for TEN YEARS.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #30 of 142
Those photos are quite the smoking gun. I hope that Samsung is completely blocked from shipping products that use stolen Apple IP and forced to pay damages.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #31 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Trying to embarrass Apple leads to more pain . . . inflicted by Apple.

The courts, ITC, regulatory bodies, so many of them over the past decade, have investigated Apple in all manner of allegations, charges, etc. Nothing significant has ever come of them.

To think Apple does not know exactly what they're doing, with their current team, is pretty ridiculous. Apple will find a way around nearly everything because they are incredibly astute and clever, legally speaking.

The entity that needs to stop is Samsung. Apple already has the game figured out until the end. This might very well change in the future if Apple were under different management, who might have a different strategy. But for now, they're far too smart for the Samsungs of the world.

Samsung is already hurting in several key areas, and the law has already favoured Apple several times in this Apple-Samsung war.

The solution is for Apple's rivals (like Samsung) is to step up their game drastically. To shake up the industry. The old ways won't cut it anymore. Derivative devices just aren't enough because innovators like Apple *will* attempt to exercise their IP rights on those who are unable to differentiate themselves or who don't have strong first-mover status.

Samsung and everyone else had their chance to pull off a June 2007 or a January 2010. But the brand name attached to the iPhone and iPad is Apple, not Samsung.

This is what happens when you swim with an Apex Predator like Apple. Apple not only manages to achieve first-mover status when and where it counts, but also brings their values and philosophy to the game (the same values and philosophy no one else has.) This results in a killer combination. Add to that two key things: they patent whatever they can like crazy (smart thing to do) and then, knowing they have all the consumer mindshare and "innovator status" on their side, plus probably the best legal team in the biz, they set about enforcing their IP *wherever they can.*

This sort of activity is now par for the course.

Samsung and the rest are not facing a mere bully. That term is far too simplistic and crude. They are facing the smartest company in tech that seems to 1) know how to exercise their legal rights, and 2) are experts on how to take big risks and win - market risks and legal risks.

Best thing for Samsung and the rest to do: stop trying to fight Apple in the courts. Apple has no problem losing on small, manageable litigation - pay out this small entity or that small entity, etc. But on big litigation that they've got on "project status", fighting Apple is like rolling a large boulder uphill. It's possible to do it, but by the time you get there you'll be exhausted and thinking it probably wasn't worth it after all.

Cheers

Apple will SUE any competition that starts gaining share in their target market. Their patents are broad enough that they can do this. They also ignore any companies that don't pose a huge risk (even ignoring samsung's own Bada) because they are using the courts as a blunt weapon and not as something to "force companies to innovate". Apple is trying to shut the companies down. They pretty much HAVE to fight. The only thing that would protect Samsung (maybe) is going to windowsphone7. Not because it is free of any patent violations, but because Apple would get countersued with stuff it can't dismiss.
post #32 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

If it's obvious why did Samsung suddenly delay the launch of Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which they continued to launch as the 10.1v model in countries outside the US) AS SOON AS THE iPAD 2 was displayed then relaunched a closer copy?

...and what's with the 30 pin dock connector, I thought fandroids were more enamoured of a range of various ports such as HDMI and USB, which they continuously and monotonously used as an argument of Android's "superiority".

Why did Samsung suddenly make an ALMOST EXACT copy (for their Tab line) of something that Apple has fairly exclusively used for TEN YEARS.

They delayed it because they knew it was too thick to compete. JUST LIKE THEY SAID INITIALLY. There is nothing wrong or illegal with changing your product as the industry changes. If you don't, you're blackberry.

As for the connector, there isn't a tablet device yet that charges using USB because of power requirements. EVERY tablet has their own specific charger. Furthermore, Apple and Samsung's chargers arn't compatible. And please tell me, when was the last time you bought something because it's charger looked familiar?

the ipad isn't 10 years old. It's 2 years old.

And this image: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/04/s...l-photo-frame/ is from 2006
post #33 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

the ipad isn't 10 years old. It's 2 years old.

Hill60 was referring to the dock connector, not the iPad.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #34 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

OK.. say someone is suing you in the US. You are also doing well in europe, does not not make sense to prep for a battle there?

The court Apple chose is the one that almost every patent dispute is funneled through because they favor patent holders over pretty much anything else. This is pretty well know in their legal circles (as even Florian pointed out). Apple is seeking an injunction in the US and in Australia, so it makes sense to be pre-emptive.

Those documents that came out also show that apple DID NOT inform Samsung that they filed for the injunction, and Samsung didn't have a chance to present their arguments during that case. The fact that they suspected it might be coming doesn't mean they committed "perjury"

So explain the letter SAMSUNG lodged with the German court a WEEK BEFORE the hearing took place, which forms part of the courts records.

Is Samsung in the habit of randomly sending letters to courts around the world, just in case a hearing involving them might come up?

I've heard of legal longshots before, but I don't think Samsung's claim of ignorance will wash.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #35 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So explain the letter SAMSUNG lodged with the German court a WEEK BEFORE the hearing took place, which forms part of the courts records.

Is Samsung in the habit of randomly sending letters to courts around the world, just in case a hearing involving them might come up?

I've heard of legal longshots before, but I don't think Samsung's claim of ignorance will wash.

Ok.. What you're asking is answered in the freaking post you QUOTED.


The court apple filed in was the one that over 90% of patent disputes in the EU are filed in because it's similar to our East District of Texas, a district that will often side with patent holders and ignore any other evidence (even prior art). IF Apple would file an injunction, it's i statistically probable it would be in that court.

Don't believe me? then provide me with PROOF that Apple informed Samsung that they had filed for the injunction. I'll save you the trouble. you won't find it, because even DED admits they didn't do this. Samsung having suspicions and acting on those suspicions isn't the same thing as being INFORMED by Apple. Which is what their response implied.
post #36 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Hill60 was referring to the dock connector, not the iPad.

It's my understanding that the 30 pin connector that samsung based their charger off of is an industry standard. It's been copy/pasted quite a bit, everywhere this "argument" comes up. If you didn't believe them then, I'm not going to waste my time digging it up.

And again, when was the last time you purchased a product based on what a charger looked like. heck, when was the last time you knew what a charger looked like before you opened the box?
post #37 of 142
Fanboy science: How 'brand identity' impacts self-esteem
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/08/ps...ng-self-image/
post #38 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

They delayed it because they knew it was too thick to compete. JUST LIKE THEY SAID INITIALLY. There is nothing wrong or illegal with changing your product as the industry changes. If you don't, you're blackberry.

As for the connector, there isn't a tablet device yet that charges using USB because of power requirements. EVERY tablet has their own specific charger. Furthermore, Apple and Samsung's chargers arn't compatible. And please tell me, when was the last time you bought something because it's charger looked familiar?

the ipad isn't 10 years old. It's 2 years old.

And this image: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/04/s...l-photo-frame/ is from 2006

The dock connector that Samsung copied is ten years old.

All other Android phones (including Samsung one's) use Micro USB as their charging ports.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #39 of 142
People that are attempting to make the argument that Apple dominates the market and that they should somehow let this slide are making a pretty dumb and irrelevant argument. It's about the principle of things, and if Apple feels that somebody else has blatantly copied their products, then they have every right to pursue the issue in courts and sue the hell out of whoever they please.

No product like the iPad with it's OS existed before it was released and while everybody is currently copying the iPad, some are more guilty than others. Especially since Apple is the #1 Samsung customer, Samsung should have been a little bit more careful in their copying ways.

The supposed photos that have been altered or manipulated, most likely to due to sloppiness or carelessness on the part of whoever put the documents together, are also totally irrelevant because the Judge's ruling is based on handling and seeing the actual physical devices. People and blogs who bring up that photo issue are just trying to distract from the real issue at hand.

We'll see how this plays out in the courts, and I'd like to see Apple win.

The way the industry is now, they all wait and see what Apple is coming out with next. Then as soon as Apple announces their next big product, all of the copycat rats get to work on their own version of said product.
post #40 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The dock connector that Samsung copied is ten years old.

All other Android phones (including Samsung one's) and tablets use Micro USB as their charging ports.

And again.. EVERY tablet has a non-standard charger because of power requirements. The phones use Micro because it's a standard, one that's required in the EU (So your iphone will have an adapter, at the least)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Samsung stalls, accuses Apple of doctoring evidence in US iPhone, iPad copying case
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung stalls, accuses Apple of doctoring evidence in US iPhone, iPad copying case