Samsung 132-page 'copy cat' doc comparing Galaxy S with iPhone admitted into evidence - Page 3

Their date was set to December 7th..??  Besides the underlying tone of setting it to that date, which is a bit absurd, I honestly cant believe something like that even made it out of anyone's OFFICE, let alone making it to the final stages...!!  They cant even come up with the idea to set the date to current day without seeing that the iPhone did that...???  Simply moronic.... wow...   and that is just one out of hundreds of things here....
 

I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.

Originally Posted by carmelapple 
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series?

I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?

If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic. 

And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.

having skimmed through All Things D, they do have some good, objective reporting http://allthingsd.com/20120807/similarity-of-apple-and-samsung-icons-beyond-coincidental-designer-testifies/?refcat=news

the "internal Samsung document comparing the original Galaxy S phone with the iPhone" doesn't seem to help the Samsung lawyers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

...

If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic. 

 

And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.

"Speedier"

Quote:

Originally Posted by carmelapple 

I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.

For whatever it's worth, there are a few phones with S appended as part for the same: Desire S, Wildfire S, Nexus S. Not all are from Samsung. But all came after iPhone 3GS, I believe?

I'd much rather get a phone call from Angelina Jolie than Hidung. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potsie Webber 

From everything I've been reading thus far, it's appears Samsung will lose and lose big. But this is a California jury, so they just might say not guilty -- remember the O.J. trial??

Completely different standards for a civil trial, compared to a criminal trial. 

Civil trial = "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. ~50+%)
Criminal trial = "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. ~99+%)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 

Man, Android looked like a car wreck back then - the whole thing was a complete mess of inconsistent fonts, weird font sizes, clashing colours and seemingly random screen layouts.

Interesting thing is, I remember my first reaction to Android back then was, "gosh, it reminds me a lot of the Windows/Microsoft aesthetic…"  For me the entire aesthetic of early Android was more derived from a Windows/PC vibe than an Apple (or any other) one…

Samsung's customizations modified it to look more iPhone-esque… and that's where they've gotten into trouble… the copying is undeniable… it's just a matter of determining whether that caused "harm".

I suppose it could be argued that most Galaxy sales were "taken" from a potential iPhone sale, because people thought they were getting "almost the same as" the iPhone, but for less money...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjw 

This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.

 

I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.

 

Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.

Do what I do… ignore the articles that carry little interest for you, and only read the ones of interest...

AI has increased the frequency of their articles pretty significantly. I only read 40~60% of them at most… some are "threads" I'm following, other topics I could care less about… 

Just like any "news" site, I'm selective based on what's interesting to me… try doing the same here? You'll no doubt enjoy it more...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Close but not completely accurate.

 

There's no claims that Samsung deleted emails or anything else after they were sued by Apple. It's that they didn't start keeping all email communications applicable to Apple and it's products when they first knew, or should have known, that that a lawsuit was likely. According to the court that should have been about 6 months prior to the lawsuit. Oddly tho, that's not when Apple considered a lawsuit would be likely, saying that was determined about four months later than the court thinks it should be. That's the reason Apple gives as to why they supposedly didn't keep a specific record of appropriate emails either. The difference, and the reason the court probably won't view the two in the same light, is that Apple says they didn't actually delete any as far as they know, unlike what happened in the home offices of Samsung in Korea.  

 

FWIW other Samsung locations most often used a different email system (Outlook or others) which didn't automatically delete after two weeks according to court docs. It's generally only the Korean home offices that are under the gun.

Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjw 

This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.

You do have the option of not reading it, and getting lost.... so to speak.... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?

 

If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic. 

 

And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.

Sport(y)?

But then, I always thought the GS in 3GS stood for "Graf Spee", you know, after the Battleship...

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?

Not at all. I've not at any time opined that Samsung is innocent which indicates you just don't pay attention. If you disagree with something I've posted or think it inaccurate just speak up. Trying to argue an imaginary issue isn't constructive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay1985 

Of course! This is the most obvious way in which you can make improvements to your product - By comparing it to a successful competitors' Product, what's new in it guys, GROW UP!

 

Okay apart from the sarcasm, this document is..... well, unbelievable. But I'm pretty sure Samsungs' counsel will find a way to justify this too.

What this document clearly establishes is the way Samsung was focused on copying everything the iPhone did better (126 items in this document or so). So, it establishes clearly that they are indeed 'the copycat'. But copying is not illegal, unless what is copied is protected by law. Much of what was copied was not protected explicitely.

It will be easy to decide for a judge or a jury that Samsung is a copycat (they clearly are). It will be more difficult to decide if they are an illegal copycat.

I am laughing all the way.

Sorry shareholders, this is not a 'copy cat' doc as the title suggests, at least not yet.  I think Apple lawyers would have hard time proving that.

I honestly don't know why you are saying this report proves copying?  Or, is it because you, as Apple shareholders, are working in this site promoting your goods (shares)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay1985 

I'm wondering..... how do both companies manage to acquire such sensitive documents?

I suspect by referrals from other documents. Like being mentioned in an email, another document etc. It is very, very hard to remove the proof of existence of a document. Because, how are you going to find and then alter for instance all the other documents where it is mentioned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjw 

This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.

 

I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.

 

Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.

 

I don't know who to blame, AppleInsider for getting sucked into the Apple vs Samsung/HTC/(Insert any other big mobile manufacturer here) flame war and losing touch with what made this blog interesting.

 

Or Apple, who by all accounts in the media these days have gone from the most exciting consumer electronics company to a large 'Suing Company' with a side business in consumer electronics.

 

However, when you see that Apple seems to be able to patent anything nowadays: (This is ridiculous) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/08/apple_patent/ , it hardly seems surprising.

 

How long until Apple patent the patent?

Do you know what is more boring?

Your post, filled as it is with catchphrases of those who want to minimise the enormity of the blatant rip-off of Apple they have done.

Why not go post that garbage on somewhere like Endgadget so you can bask in the glory of +1's from the mindless Android fans over there, where comments like "Apple copied the rectangle, I hate them.", "Innovate don't litigate" get hundreds of upvotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark 

Yes, but Apple didn't implement those items in the exact same way as Android. They differentiated it and/or improved upon it. Sammy, on the other hand, saw the iPhone and copy and pasted without improving upon it.

Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?

There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?

 

If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic. 

 

And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.

"Stevier".

Cheers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them.  I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.  

What's that?

No-one apart from Apple, you say?

Check it out.

Originally Posted by hill60 

Check it out.

Ah, so Germany will protect the intellectual property of its car manufacturers, but not of American technology manufacturers. I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkichline 

Wow. I've been skimming through this document and it is absolutely stunning how systematically they worked to copy the iPhone design aesthetic and UX. Now one commenter said that yes, this is the type of review you'd expect, but being in the UX industry for about 10 years, there is a difference between reviewing your own screenshots and making direction, and comparing another product, making direction and giving an engineer the "correct" UI on the left side. As another review stated, they didn't say it, but it was heavily inferred that they copy the UI/UX on the left.

 

This is wholesale copying of everything that made me go "wow" when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone.  This is stuff that was not obvious then and made the iPhone something brilliant. Here we see Samsung picking that apart and giving direction as to how to copy all those usability features that Apple spent years refining.

 

The article is correct that this does not necessarily mean they violated design patents (although some of these directions definitely show that they were doing just that), but it does show how they used the hard work and design genius of Apple's designers for their own benefit.

They'd be stupid not to do so. Jobs himself did that. Do your stuff as well as you can and if someone outperforms you, study why to outperform him later...

But I imagine that professionally, when someone ouperforms you, you just switch jobs? No? How remarkable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicapt 

"Stevier".

 

 

Cheers

Heh. Actually, it probably means "Simile" :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?

 

There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.

The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Here's a hint (although none of the Apple bashers ever seem to want to do this).
Read the actual patent. Not some summary on an Apple-bashing site. Apple did not patent the shopping list as the Register claims. They are patenting only the very specific claims being made.
In the end, though, some people are so enmeshed in the idea of attacking Apple on everything and justifying anything that Apple's competitors do that logic doesn't work, so I don't have any hope that you'll even bother to read the patent.

That's why I usually link to the patents so that anyone truly interested can look for themselves. Since you already read it do you have the link to share? If not I can look it up.

EDIT: Here's the patent app.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8239276.PN.&OS=PN/8239276&RS=PN/8239276

and the abstract description:

Systems and methods for providing shopping-related information to a consumer are provided. Embodiments of the system allow a consumer to create an electronic shopping list by scanning products. In some embodiments, shopping-related information may be obtained for items in the shopping list, such as pricing information, product quality, consumer ratings, and other information that may help a consumer to make an informed purchasing decision. Other embodiments allow a consumer to obtain and compare retail prices offered by several retailers for products in the shopping list. Still other embodiments provide a store-wide network that allows a shopper to scan items in the store, add the scanned items to a shopping list, and then check-out electronically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.

It was also on the first iPhone.

The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.

Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.

NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.

This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.

Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quantz 

Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.

What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple

get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a

shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.

Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.

These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,

is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.

This is the least intelligent reply I could have possibly expected. You ignored everything I said and just waved the shareholder card.  Regarding criminal charges, you have to find a criminal law that has been violated, and you would most likely have to seek extradition, as I doubt you will find their top executives to be citizens of the United States. You ignored everything I said and went off on a rant. Regarding SJ's decision, the official record is that Andy Rubin stepped out whenever the iphone was discussed. That's the official statement from Apple, so I'll go with that. Arguing who stole what on Apple vs Google is pointless there, as you'll never prove it. Not only that, it's not on topic with what we were discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

It was also on the first iPhone.

 

The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.

 

Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.

 

NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.

 

This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.

 

Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.

I've never said it was stolen. I was pointing out Android didn't take it from the Apple jailbreakers as you thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I believe it was required by law. They can't legally delete or alter anything but they can legally give you so much data that the relevant stuff is harder to find.

Correct (even though it is strongly believed that they may have deleted all incriminating emails that were non-Outlook in origin)

The only strategy left to Samsung in these circumstances was to "hide them in plain sight". It must have required several days of "burning the Midnight Oil" for Apple's tireless legal eagles to go through the reams of bumph and finally hit paydirt with this gem, this peach of an eye-opener.

High fives all round at 3 a.m. in the morning, I imagine :-) 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Ah, so Germany will protect the intellectual property of its car manufacturers, but not of American technology manufacturers. I see.

Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?

Looks ugly...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin 

Maybe Samsung should try using the angle that Apple wanted to see what an iPhone designed by Sony would look like and it turns out, it looks like this:



A slight departure from their previous unique Xperia S design, perhaps they have a similar copy-cat document that needs to be looked at.

Originally Posted by lightknight 
Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?

Eight months for an irrelevant reply?