or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple blocks Samsung F700 designer's testimony, calls it irrelevant
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple blocks Samsung F700 designer's testimony, calls it irrelevant

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
Hyong Shin Park, a designer for Samsung, won't be taking the stand in the patent infringement because Apple successfully argued that her testimony has nothing to do with its infringement claims.

Samsung hoped to have Park testify that the the company's phone designs were inspired by "a bowl of water," rather than Apple's iPhone, but Apple argued that the designer had worked on the F700, a model that isn't among the list of devices Apple has accused of infringement.

Park was expected to describe how Samsung's F700 project evolved, and how the design team arrived at design decisions and selected its feature set.

Samsung has repeatedly attempted to bring up the F700 in its case with Apple, because it had some design elements patented just weeks before the iPhone was unveiled, even though it wasn't released commercially until after the iPhone debuted. Its legal strategy also hoped to describe the development of its design as being based on function, not on trying to create a ornamental, iconic look similar to Apple's.

Samsung F700
Design patents for Samsung's F700 smartphone were applied for in 2006, before the original iPhone was announced.
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In a filling last week, Park was planning to testify that the F700 had "a rectangular housing with four evenly-rounded corners, rounded edges on all four sides, a large, flat clear glass cover over the entire front face without ornamentation, a curved bezel that extends towards the back of the phone, an oblong speaker slot at the top of the front flat face, and a single optical jog button at the bottom of the front face."

The court had already ruled that Samsung's F700 could be admissible to "rebut an allegation of copying," but stated that it "does not constitute prior art" in a way that would invalidate Apple's design patents. Samsung wants to discredit Apple's design patents in particular because they offer Apple the legal leverage to demand all of Samsung's profits under U.S. law.

Technical patents, in contrast, can only be used to seek much smaller damage claims and future royalty payments.

Apple had argued against Park's testimony last week, writing in its motion, "going into the creation history of an alternative design is clearly intended to skirt the Court?s previous rulings. Going into the design history of the F700 in particular is extremely prejudicial because the risk is high that the jury will consider the F700 as evidence of independent development, invalidity, or non-infringement regardless of whether or not Samsung encourages them to do so. In short, there is no permissible purpose for which Samsung can introduce Ms. Park?s testimony on the F700 that is admissible."

Apple also noted that Park herself said that none of Samsung's accused models were based on the F700 her team had developed.



After floating the F700 unsuccessfully as a product shortly after the iPhone, Samsung continued making devices that looked more like RIM's BlackBerry (such as the Windows Mobile Samsung Blackjack), Nokia handsets and other popular phones of the period, until began launching new phones Apple argues were intentionally modeled after the iPhone, immediately after the iPhone became wildly popular.

Additionally, starting with its Galaxy line of mobile products, Samsung began copying not just the overall look of the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, but went even further to add a "Touchwiz" layer to Android that made its devices far more closely resemble Apple's products than other Android licensee have.
post #2 of 57

The brick with a keyboard modelled in the image of a pond. I can see how that is irrelevant (or is that irreverent?).

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #3 of 57
bad news for those bunch of criminals.

if someone can still give credibility to a company like that (when informed). they give enough info for me to call that person a piece of trash.
post #4 of 57

(This is not directly related to the story, and I apologize in advance!): Could someone please give me a link to the fabulous photos that get posted which show the extent of Samsung's (alleged) copying of Apple products? Hopefully, all in one place?

 

Back to the story, I am actually looking forward to Week 2 more than Week 1 because it'll be fascinating to see Apple's dismantling of Samsung's defense. Forget the $$. I hope it leaves them with enough reputational pie in the face so that they -- and the ones like them -- think twice about doing this sort of thing again. (Also, it would appear that the judge blocked another key witness, one that Samsung was trying to sneak by Apple without allowing Apple to depose him: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com).

post #5 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

(This is not directly related to the story, and I apologize in advance!): Could someone please give me a link to the fabulous photos that get posted which show the extent of Samsung's (alleged) copying of Apple products? Hopefully, all in one place?

Here ya go.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102595858/Apple-s-August-2010-presentation-to-Samsung-on-iPhone-patents

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 57

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

 

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

post #7 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

Samsung was "late" in filing some docs they wanted accepted by the court. This was among them. The court held that Apple didn't have the time to properly respond, thus this evidence (and others) wasn't allowed. I've no idea if this was part of an intentional plan by Samsung as support for any possible appeal or a modern day remake of the Keystone Kops. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

 

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

 

Just like Samsung will try to do the same. But in my opinion, that phone looks nothing like the IPhone.

 

 

 

On a side note: I think I may be biting the bullet and getting a Macbook Pro Retina display. (Though I still hate that Apple terminated the 17''). Has anyone had any problem with theirs? And what kind of start up time can you get out of a 16gb?

post #9 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

Read the story? It came out after the iPhone so trade dress claims are intact and unlike later phones by Samsung it did not have almost exatly the same iconic look. No later Samsung phones were based on it per Samsung. I think this points out just how closely the later phones were imitating the iPhone. Noone would confuse this pre ipone samsung release for an iPhone.
post #10 of 57

Oracle needs to call these guys up if they appeal their lawsuit against Google.

post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

... Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  ...

 

It's not though.  It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface.  It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.  

 

Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing.  They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.  

post #12 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoken Joe View Post


Read the story? It came out after the iPhone so trade dress claims are intact and unlike later phones by Samsung it did not have almost exatly the same iconic look. No later Samsung phones were based on it per Samsung. I think this points out just how closely the later phones were imitating the iPhone. Noone would confuse this pre ipone samsung release for an iPhone.

It came out about the same time.

 

http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/

 

Apple was dumb to include it on their original complaint as there was nothing to rip off at the time Samsung would have built their prototypes on this one. You really think it comes down to a day by day thing on who released first? You can find it on some of the other Apple enthusiast sites, but the reason Samsung was denied this as evidence was due to late filing. Their argument was also that it was a precursor for later ones. The LG prada was 2007 as well. From the generic standpoint of larger touch enabled lcd displays, I suspect this was motivated by falling costs to include such components. You really should put at least some thought into your responses.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

 

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

 

This is more likely the action of Apple's legal team. Apple's interests involve closing the case as quickly as possible with a victory and moving on. In terms of infringing devices, they'll post up anything they think will stick. I think the GSIII was put on the trade dress complaint as well, although I could be wrong on that one. It was definitely addressed on something.

post #13 of 57

I haven't read anywhere if Samsung is suspected of industrial espionage related to iPhone designs. As I understand it iPhone influenced Samsung phones came to market around the same time as the first iPhone public unveiling. Or, maybe because Samsung was a key supplier for the iphone project they had been seeing at least some design features for a long time?

 

It couldn't happen given trade secrets, etc. but comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?

post #14 of 57

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

post #15 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

It's not though.  It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface.  It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.  

 

Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing.  They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.  

As to Apple's design patents specifically, it doesn't matter that it's a slider phone or that the screen was resistive. The screen technology was not specified or restricted, nor would it be for design. In one of the two patents Apple says the claims apply even to a toy. As for the keyboard, Apple design patent doesn't speak to that as a claimed element. They only concern themselves with the forward display area. Side and back views are illustrative only and not part of the claims

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

 

That's for a judge to decide according to the system. The jury is only supposed to look at the evidence being presented and then make a decision, the jury is not supposed to decide what kind of evidence they should look at. Some might think it's not fair in this case, but remember, the system is not designed just for this case.

 

In any case, Samsung is allowed to appeal, I mean, from how the case is going so far, it's pretty obvious they're climbing an uphill battle anyway, so they might as well save this for appeal.

post #17 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Samsung was "late" in filing some docs they wanted accepted by the court. This was among them. The court held that Apple didn't have the time to properly respond, thus this evidence (and others) wasn't allowed. I've no idea if this was part of an intentional plan by Samsung as support for any possible appeal or a modern day remake of the Keystone Kops. 

 

This will certainly be grounds for the appeal. Regardless of who wins (Apple clearly) this thing is going to end up appealed. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

 

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

 

I disagree.  The introduction of irrelevant information in a trial poses the risk of confusion, distraction, and watering down the main points.  Going off on a tangent is in no way good for a trial (unless you are losing on the main points, ala Samsung).

 

It is entirely possible that Apple sees the F700 as a confusing tangent more so than it sees it as a threat.  Check out the F700 yourself, and I think it's fairly clear that it has very little similarities to the iPhone beyond the "rectangle with touchscreen" quality.  I know that Samsung, and possibly yourself, see that as the thrust of this battle, but it is not.  The phones which Apple has claimed infringement against are far more like the iPhone than the F700.

 

Sleep tight, Samsung.  You're getting your butt handed to you in court.

 

Thompson

post #19 of 57

Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).

 

I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....

post #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by apersona View Post

I haven't read anywhere if Samsung is suspected of industrial espionage related to iPhone designs. As I understand it iPhone influenced Samsung phones came to market around the same time as the first iPhone public unveiling. Or, maybe because Samsung was a key supplier for the iphone project they had been seeing at least some design features for a long time?

 

It couldn't happen given trade secrets, etc. but comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?

 

 

"What does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?"

 

They show us, when Apple shows them. As usual.

post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by apersona View Post
.... comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?

This is what I've been also wondering. Why hasn't Apple subpoenaed for Samsung's pipeline and product development process info/protagonists as Apple was required to (presumably by Samsung)?

post #22 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

Hello.... did you have trouble reading/processing arguments for why she excluded it?

post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).

 

I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....

Gotcha. Most of those odds and ends can be found here, along with links to the original image sources:

http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

 

I do pay attention. . .

:)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

That's not how a jury system works,  Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial.  And you cannot claim bias without proof.  It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it.  If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that.  Not us.

post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

They submitted it late. It's unlikely that the judge is as biased as you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).

 

I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....


Just on the cable charger thing, one end was usb, and other looked about as similar to pdmi, although I don't think samsung uses that. The cable portion was a real stretch to the suggestion of that array of jpegs..

post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Gotcha. Most of those odds and ends can be found here, along with links to the original image sources:

http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

 

I do pay attention. . .

:)

Thanks. That's a mother lode.

post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thanks. That's a mother lode.

I do have my useful side.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

That's not how a jury system works,  Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial.  And you cannot claim bias without proof.  It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it.  If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that.  Not us.

 

I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.

post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

 

I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.

That was before she showed bias for Apple, which came after her decision to show bias for Samsung. Before that she was simply biased against Americans. . .

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

 

Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

 

 

You don't understand why it is fair because you don't understand the legal issues involved. Apple is suing Samsung for relief under multiple legal theories including patent, copyright, and trademark.

 

Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.

 

The Court, however, is saying Samsung can use the F700 to counter any Apple argument of copyright infringement whereby it would be relevant to show independent development.

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.

 

 

Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.

post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

 

I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.

 

Yep..  that was when judge Koh refused to grant injunction against Samsung - which was later overturned. 

 

It's difficult to tell Koh is really biased - seems like the mainstream media coverage of the case is overly favorable to Apple, while others, Groklaw for instance, seem to side with Samsung. Then you have self-claimed patent-expert Florian Mueller, a paid anti-Android shill, whose commentaries routinely show up on Cnet, AI, etc..   

post #33 of 57

And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.

 

In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false.  Do you see the parallels?

post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false.  Do you see the parallels?

 

Welcome to AI - home of the birther movement.

post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

It's not though.  It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface.  It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.  

Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing.  They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.  

Then why aren't we shown different angles when comparing Samsung's devices with Apple's? I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700. Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. Now as far as Touch Wiz goes I feel that they intentionally copied the look of iOS.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

 

 

Verdicts are matters of criminal trials, not civil. Further, unless you understand patent, copyright, and trademark law, you can hardly argue the Judge is showing bias. Many thought the judge was originally biased against Apple because she didn't initially order the injunctions Apple requested until the appeal court said injunctions might be appropriate. Further, I think the judge isn't being hard enough on Samsung considering it destroying evidence, violated the Court's wishes on releasing information to the public, and allowed an attorney not admitted to the Court to argue a motion.

post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

 

Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.


You are right  I am making a general claim for purposes of simplicity, but in this case the patent has not been found to be invalid. So the Judge is treating the patent as valid. As such, Samsung's prior work is irrelevant for purposes of Apple's design patent.

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


...  I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700 Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. ...

 

It is difficult and confusing but if you believe this, then you believe incorrectly.  These phones have almost nothing in common.  

They certainly aren't "variants" which refers to two models that are very close in design to one another in the same series.  

post #40 of 57
Apple also noted that Park herself said that none of Samsung's accused models were based on the F700 her team had developed.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple blocks Samsung F700 designer's testimony, calls it irrelevant