Apple, Samsung briefs yield overview of upcoming trial

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mocseg wrote: »
    From DailyTech:

    Oops.
    Are those actual sales figures reported by Samsung? Or just estimates.
  • Reply 22 of 46

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    "Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies ? all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide -- offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple?s single, expensive and closed-system devices."


     


    Whether true or not, this statement is aimed at the jury's emotions and seems completely irrelevant to the intellectual property claims. Infringement is infringement even if it's flexible, open, and full of choices.



     


     


    The jury will never see the brief.  Therefore, it cannot be "aimed at the jury's emotions".  

  • Reply 23 of 46


    Just start the trial and then we'll see what happens. I never thought suspense would grip me over trials.

  • Reply 24 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    rogifan wrote: »
    So according to the WSJ apparently Samsung is claiming a 2006 Businessweek interview with Sony was the inspiration for the iPhone design. They claim this magazine article was passed around between Jobs, Tony Fadell and Jony Ive and it became the reference point for the iPhone design. Seems to be a bit of a stretch...it's not like Apple had this great fondness for buttons or excess ornamentation prior to the iPhone.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100119002641/http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2006/id20060221_140419.htm

    It's more than a stretch - it's total BS.

    The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.
  • Reply 25 of 46

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Where is the proof that they took inspiration from the Nokia phone with a touch screen (that wasn't capacitance) and had only one button (which Apple had been infamously known for since the first Mac)?


     


     


    Is it necessary to prove when, where and how Apple took inspiration from the Nokia?  That seems like a heavy burden.


     


    In copyright law, it is not necessary to prove that the copying was intentional.  That was established in the case of "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison, which was found to have infringed on "She's So Fine", despite the fact that Harrison didn't realize that the tune in his head came from an existing song.


     


    I don't know if the rule extends to patent claims or not.


     


     And we don't know where Samsung got the examples of other phones that predated the iPhone, but looked basically like the iPhone,  If they got them from Apple's files in discovery, then the proof would be easy to infer.  If they got them from widely available public sources, then one could infer that Apple likely had seen them.  If they got them from sooper seekrit Nokia sources, then conscious copying by Apple is difficult to establish.  


     


    But again - I don't know if Samsung has to prove that Apple specifically copied the prior art, or just that the prior art existed and was known in the industry.

  • Reply 26 of 46
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


    Not really though.  If you search for the phones they were actually selling in 2006 they look nothing like this. If they were really working on these designs why wouldn't they patent them.  Its clear the iPhone was almost 5 years in the making. Remember too that they already had prototypes for the iPad in 2002 that had a similar design just bigger. With all of the iPhone leaks and rumors before the release they had plenty of time to do mock ups based on Apples design. Both Samsung and Google had inside information that Apple was really doing a phone, what it would include and when it would be released.  Remember Google had someone on Apples Board and Samsung was supplying the screen and other tech so they were the only competitors that knew the rumors were true.   


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    And page 2 & 3 of the Samsung brief.


     


     


    "For good measure, Apple seeks to exclude Samsung from the market, based on its complaints that Samsung has used the very same public domain design concepts that Apple borrowed from other competitors, including Sony, to develop the iPhone. Apple‘s own internal documents show this. In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived of, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article that contained an interview of a Sony designer to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, the Sony designer discussed Sony portable electronic device designs that lacked ?excessive ornamentation? such as buttons, fit in the hand, were ?square with a screen and had ?corners [which] have been rounded out.... Immediately after this article was circulated internally, Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori was directed to prepare a ?Sony-like design for an Apple phone and had CAD drawings and a three-dimensional model prepared. See Exs.... All citations to... ?Ex.? refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Joby Martin, filed concurrently herewith.


     


    Eliminating any doubt about the origin of the design‘s inspiration, Apple‘s internal CAD drawings had the ?Sony name prominently emblazoned on the phone design. Only days later, Apple designer Richard Howarth reported that, in contrast to another internal design that was then under consideration, Mr. Nishibori‘s ?Sony-style? design was ?a much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape to have next to your ear and in your pocket? and had greater ?size and shape/comfort benefits.? Ex. 3 (DX 562). As Mr. Nishibori has confirmed, his ?Sony-style? design changed the direction of the project that yielded the final iPhone designs.


     


    ....


     


    Furthermore, much of what Apple complains of is the ?benchmarking of competitive products by Samsung. But this is a universal practice in the smartphone, tablet and other consumer electronics markets. It involves doing side-by-side product comparisons of competitors‘ products. Samsung certainly does this; so does Apple, and so does any company interested in continually improving its products for the benefit of consumers. There is nothing wrong with this common industry practice. That Apple itself zealously engages in the same type of benchmarking says everything about the disingenuous nature of Apple‘s allegation that this evidences ?"copying"."
  • Reply 27 of 46
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,401member
    hungover wrote: »
     It was not my intention to suggest that apple were aware of the Nokia phone, I have no idea if they did or didn't. I was suggesting that different parties can design similar items without prior knowledge of each others.

    Then why bring up a questionable example to try to make your case?
  • Reply 28 of 46
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,401member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Are those actual sales figures reported by Samsung? Or just estimates.

    You know the answer to that question. The Samsungistas (attr. SolipsismX) live in a la-la land of numbers.
  • Reply 29 of 46
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jragosta wrote: »
    It's more than a stretch - it's total BS.
    The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.
    I suppose the intent is to show that all designers take inspiration from other designers. But like you say there's a difference between being inspired by something and copying something, I'm sure Apple was inspired by Sony but no one would mistake a MBA for a Vaio. However some of the laptops/ultrabooks that came after the MBA and unibody MacBooks do look like copies more than anything else (good example is the HP Envy).
  • Reply 30 of 46
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    You know the answer to that question. The Samsungistas (attr. SolipsismX) live in a la-la land of numbers.
    OK even if the S III sold 19M worldwide, so what? We already know that Apple's main competitor in the smartphone market is Samsung. And the S III got tons of press and was marketed like crazy. Let's compare numbers after the new iPhone is released this fall. Oh and the ones who should be worried about those numbers are HTC, Motorola and Nokia. Seems as though those who don't want an iPhone don't want HTC, Motorola or Nokia either.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    nealgnealg Posts: 132member


    All very interesting stuff. All this patent and trial stuff is a bit greek to me so I will wait for the trial to straighten things out. It will be interesting to see what has appeared in the press so far is real/imagined for each side.

  • Reply 32 of 46
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,401member
    jragosta wrote: »
    It's more than a stretch - it's total BS.
    The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.

    Moreover, Samsung can claim whatever the heck it wants about anything, since all its email evidence relating to the trial seems to have been deleted.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:



    Originally Posted by hungover View Post


    Hang on...


     


     


    Are the Apple legal team unable to spell???


     


    "one designer said the Galaxy S "[c] oosely [sic] resembles the iPhone shape"


     


    If I had to add a letter to oosely i would add L to make Loosely....   coosely isn't even a word!!!


     


     


    Or did AI manipulate the word?



     


    It looks like AI decided to try to insert the redacted content from Apple's trial brief. All Things Digital was reporting the content, so I imagine that AI took the content from them and inserted it into content that they got from the trial brief itself. Unless they have the unredacted version though, seems a little disingenuous of AI to not attribute rumored content.

  • Reply 34 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Moreover, Samsung can claim whatever the heck it wants about anything, since all its email evidence relating to the trial seem to have disappeared.


    It's not that bad. They did start keeping emails that might be applicable shortly before they received notice that Apple was filing suit. What the court is saying, and I agree with, is that Samsung should have anticipated the filing sooner than it did and begun keeping those email records about 6 months sooner. That's why the judge is giving Samsung the benefit of doubt and only noting to the jury that some evidence, perhaps beneficial to Apple's case or perhaps not, may not have been retained. If he felt it was willful destruction of evidence supporting Apples' case the jury instructions would be much more adverse. Email via Outlook, used primarily outside of Samsung's Korea offices, appears to be largely intact and available according to comments in the FOSSPatents blog article. It's the mySingle email system and it's 2-week deletion settings used by the Korean home offices that's at issue.


     


    By not having those additional 6 months of emails there's only about 38 million pages of evidence submitted in the case for the court and the attorneys to rely on. (Perfect place for an "eyeroll")

  • Reply 35 of 46
    applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member


    Cha-ching!


     


    Then this happened:


    http://www.marco.org/2010/08/19/a-smartphone-retrospective


     

  • Reply 36 of 46
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    hungover wrote: »
    Hang on...


    Are the Apple legal team unable to spell???

    "one designer said the Galaxy S "[c] oosely [sic] resembles the iPhone shape"

    If I had to add a letter to oosely i would add L to make Loosely....   coosely isn't even a word!!!


    Or did AI manipulate the word?

    "[sic]" means quote the person, with spelling errors. meaning you know that it is spelt wrong, but you want to exactly quote them.
  • Reply 37 of 46

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


    Not really though.  If you search for the phones they were actually selling in 2006 they look nothing like this. If they were really working on these designs why wouldn't they patent them.  Its clear the iPhone was almost 5 years in the making. Remember too that they already had prototypes for the iPad in 2002 that had a similar design just bigger. With all of the iPhone leaks and rumors before the release they had plenty of time to do mock ups based on Apples design. Both Samsung and Google had inside information that Apple was really doing a phone, what it would include and when it would be released.  Remember Google had someone on Apples Board and Samsung was supplying the screen and other tech so they were the only competitors that knew the rumors were true.   


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



    Simpleankit and hjb were mentioning that Samsung did put in a patent for the F700 in late 2006, so they may have a case that they came out with this first. Does it really even matter if they were prototypes Vs. patented retail models? If they can prove it's not a novel idea, isn't the patent invalid either way? Now, there is still the question of, did they have some idea of what the iPhone would look like ahead of time, since it must have been well into development by late 2006. That's one of the things the court is there to decide, right?

  • Reply 38 of 46
    flabberflabber Posts: 100member

    Quote:


    The company claims that Apple's FRAND defenses are meritless and notes licenses for the Samsung technology used in iDevices have been offered to "every major player in the mobile industry" with positive results across the board. Apple is supposedly the only firm to have denied the cross-licensing deal.



     


     


    That's nice, but wasn't it Samsung who was asking a non-FRAND price for these patents, while offering them for a FRAND price to other licensees?


     


    Besides that, even though I can understand part of Samsung's complaints (whines) regarding the fact that it at least sééms that Apple has been leaning heavily on the inspiration of that Sony phone concept (I can't say for sure because I don't know the factual story behind it), they're deeply mistaken that Apple is stiffling competition. There's no way ányone would or cóúld believe that the designs of Samsung's phones and accessoires are due to "natural evolution" of the/their smartphone designs. Besides the similarities in design, some elements are just 1-on-1 copies with even the measurements being earily similar to that of Apple's products.


     


    Claiming that Apple wouldn't have been able to sell a single iPhone without Samsung's patented technology is even funnier. Those are FRAND-patents that ány phone maker needs in order to be able to make a phone/smartphone. Let's turn that around for a moment… I believe Samsung wouldn't be the number 2 in smartphone sales if they didn't blatantly copied Apple's designs. I believe that statement actually holds more ground than Samsung's dumb complaints.


     


    And who knows why Apple had "Sony" on their first designs anyway? Perhaps they initially wanted Sony to máke the phone, with Apple's iOS on it.


     


    Either way, I believe Samsung might be able to win a few cases in this whole trial-fest, but I strongly believe Apple will completely destroy most of their claims and will win a large portion of this whole trial… primarily the ones where Samsung is not offering these FRAND-patents fairly and the fact that Samsung's "designs" áre in fact too similar. If HTC, Motorola (partly) and Nokia are able to create original designs (wether or not you like them), Samsung should also be able to do so. There is no one single design that can be used as the answer to everything, and a product company should always strive to create their own identity by being original in their own way. Sometimes they might get it wrong, sometimes they might get it right. But either way they will always keep their dignity intact imho.

  • Reply 39 of 46
    With all these smartphone lawsuits you'd think the world's experts on patent law wouldnt have time to post on a niche website.

    Very happy that I switched from an iPhone to Galaxy 2. Bigger screen, more options for customization. We know Apple won't sue based on useable screen size!
  • Reply 40 of 46
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by haar View Post





    "[sic]" means quote the person, with spelling errors. meaning you know that it is spelt wrong, but you want to exactly quote them.


     Thanks Haar. I did realise that sic is used to show that one is aware that they are quoting something that is "linguistically" flawed.


     


    I was questioning the author's intentions.


     


    If I was presented with the word OOSELY I would assume that one single letter was missing from the beginning of the word. I would add the letter L  and  end up with the word LOOSELY.


     


    I guess in my quote of the quote I should have added my own sic to accompany the author's sic.


     


    The author has decided to add C to the beginning of the word and has ended up with COOSELY. I assume that they meant closely.


     


    It goes without saying that closely would suit the author's agenda more than loosely would.

Sign In or Register to comment.