While Samsung said during the trial that it had more than 1,000 people working on the design of products, Stringer said Apple’s industrial design team is a small group of about 15 people from countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia and Japan.
So even with more than 1,000 people working on product design they still can't figure out how not to copy Apple.
The pictures may be excluded because they are predated by the "Purple" iPhone design in 2005, because they were never released as phones, because Samsung can't prove they were actually designed in 2006, or a whole bunch of other possibilities. It would be nice to get a clear statement on it.
I thought they were excluded because Samsung missed the submission deadline.
Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?
If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial. This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing. That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.
It was a brilliant move by Samsung.
No it's a stupid move. If a judge issues an order and you violate it, you are in contempt. That pisses off the judge and screws up your appeals attempts. Smart would have been to do nothing and if they lost to file an appeal over the evidence that was unfairly excluded and possible bias
If Samsung valued all evidence being used, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed thousands of emails eh?
Just being asked to design something the way one company would design something would not constitute copying a design. In fact, it could have been a defensive move to make sure that Apple wouldn't design something that Sony would claim to be copying. Since the iPhone was something so new, they wanted to make sure that a device of that caliber would not be confused as a Sony product if they were to independently be developing one. (Since Sony is one of few tech companies other than Apple that has a design aesthetic of their own).
Remember, the best designs are not created by how many ideas you keep, but how many ideas you throw away. Design is a subtractive process which Jony Ive himself has stated. So knowing what NOT to do is more important than knowing what to do. This is something that 99% of people do not understand, and certainly not the "design is an afterthought" competitors. By designing a "Sony-inspired" iPhone, they found what to remove from the final design.
Lastly, designing something as part of the design process does not constitute copying since the design process is an iterative critical process.
Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really.
The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural. This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."
The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding. It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff. It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.
I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."
However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?
I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.
So even with more than 1,000 people working on product design they still can't figure out how not to copy Apple.
If this is true I find it incredibly amazing. Did they specify which department they were in? Are those people designing washing machines, refrigerators and t.v.'s or do they have 1,000 literally working on phones? I'm seriously curious.
It's basically the 2nd gen and 6th gen iPod nano design, but sideways. On the iPod nano, the flat parts are the top and bottom. And with the 2nd gen nano having been released in September 2006, you can bet that there's even priorer (priorlier?) art than that in the form of its prototypes.
I love that!
Please say that will be the next iPod mini or even iPod! Awesome, useable and the size is befitting of even a woman's fingers vs. the new nano.
Wow! You're posting cool pics like you did before you had to adopt that rather nerdy signature...
...and it think you were getting at...
You can bet there is earlier art than even these pictures imply regarding prototypes.
Now I understand all the 'one liners' you keep pumping out.
If this is true I find it incredibly amazing. Did they specify which department they were in? Are those people designing washing machines, refrigerators and t.v.'s or do they have 1,000 literally working on phones? I'm seriously curious.
Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?
If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial. This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing. That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.
It was a brilliant move by Samsung.
It was a desperate move by Samsung., and just serves to make them look guilty. The case isn't about who came up with the idea first (though I can't remember anyone arranging apps into tiles before Apple. I could wrong though) ; it's about Samsung copying Apple's designs.
And don't think that deliberately disobeying the judge (twice!) is going to win them a sympathetic judge at any appeal.
To be honest, I didn't think Apple had much of a case until Samsung started shredding documents. Certainly looks like a company with something to hide.
Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?
If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial. This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing. That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.
It was a brilliant move by Samsung.
So... a judge that studies the documents in detail and follows a logical argument is "biased" but someone who forms their opinion based on the equivalent of a tweet constitutes a "fair trial".
The door is behind you. See ya.
The galaxy range are decent phones. They're positively amazing for android standards. But the only thing supporting those tent pole features is the bedrock of useability enhancements first laid down by iOS.
I work with Chinese and Korean factories every day. They have no idea how to come up with their own designs. Their only motivation is to steal ideas in hopes they can make money because they have no trademark laws. When we have something made in China or Korea, we have to have the patent/trademark imbedded in the mold so they can't give our molds to another factor for profit.
I was saying I don't believe it. If there's truly 1,000 designers working on phones then their result is pretty pathetic. That's 40,000 man-hours per week (not sure why they're called MAN hours) and from what I've seen of their phones, it just doesn't make any sense.
O.k. I looked it up. So MAN hours is what a MAN can accomplish in an hours worth of work. (I know it sounded simple, so i assumed it meant something more than that.) That's rather denigrating... I do however agree if it's physical labor.
I think you missed the point of my post.
I was saying I don't believe it. If there's truly 1,000 designers working on phones then their result is pretty pathetic. That's 40,000 man-hours per week (not sure why they're called MAN hours) and from what I've seen of their phones, it just doesn't make any sense.
I've got to believe that number is across all of Samsung's businesses and includes more than just designers.
Comments
While Samsung said during the trial that it had more than 1,000 people working on the design of products, Stringer said Apple’s industrial design team is a small group of about 15 people from countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia and Japan.
So even with more than 1,000 people working on product design they still can't figure out how not to copy Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I thought they were excluded because Samsung missed the submission deadline.
That will happen when you have to hire graphic designers in a hurry to conjure up "old" designs. (^_-)
No it's a stupid move. If a judge issues an order and you violate it, you are in contempt. That pisses off the judge and screws up your appeals attempts. Smart would have been to do nothing and if they lost to file an appeal over the evidence that was unfairly excluded and possible bias
If Samsung valued all evidence being used, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed thousands of emails eh?
Just being asked to design something the way one company would design something would not constitute copying a design. In fact, it could have been a defensive move to make sure that Apple wouldn't design something that Sony would claim to be copying. Since the iPhone was something so new, they wanted to make sure that a device of that caliber would not be confused as a Sony product if they were to independently be developing one. (Since Sony is one of few tech companies other than Apple that has a design aesthetic of their own).
Remember, the best designs are not created by how many ideas you keep, but how many ideas you throw away. Design is a subtractive process which Jony Ive himself has stated. So knowing what NOT to do is more important than knowing what to do. This is something that 99% of people do not understand, and certainly not the "design is an afterthought" competitors. By designing a "Sony-inspired" iPhone, they found what to remove from the final design.
Lastly, designing something as part of the design process does not constitute copying since the design process is an iterative critical process.
I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."
However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?
I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.
If this is true I find it incredibly amazing. Did they specify which department they were in? Are those people designing washing machines, refrigerators and t.v.'s or do they have 1,000 literally working on phones? I'm seriously curious.
I love that!
Please say that will be the next iPod mini or even iPod! Awesome, useable and the size is befitting of even a woman's fingers vs. the new nano.
Wow! You're posting cool pics like you did before you had to adopt that rather nerdy signature...
...and it think you were getting at...
You can bet there is earlier art than even these pictures imply regarding prototypes.
Now I understand all the 'one liners' you keep pumping out.
I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.
It was a desperate move by Samsung., and just serves to make them look guilty. The case isn't about who came up with the idea first (though I can't remember anyone arranging apps into tiles before Apple. I could wrong though) ; it's about Samsung copying Apple's designs.
And don't think that deliberately disobeying the judge (twice!) is going to win them a sympathetic judge at any appeal.
To be honest, I didn't think Apple had much of a case until Samsung started shredding documents. Certainly looks like a company with something to hide.
Originally Posted by Rayz
I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.
Schiller is slightly thinner than he once was, too. I imagine they will all be somewhat paranoid about regular checkups from now on.
Really? Well I hope he's managed to stay in good shape. It's important not to let work run your whole life, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech
Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?
If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial. This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing. That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.
It was a brilliant move by Samsung.
So... a judge that studies the documents in detail and follows a logical argument is "biased" but someone who forms their opinion based on the equivalent of a tweet constitutes a "fair trial".
The door is behind you. See ya.
The galaxy range are decent phones. They're positively amazing for android standards. But the only thing supporting those tent pole features is the bedrock of useability enhancements first laid down by iOS.
Very sad, but probably true.
I work with Chinese and Korean factories every day. They have no idea how to come up with their own designs. Their only motivation is to steal ideas in hopes they can make money because they have no trademark laws. When we have something made in China or Korea, we have to have the patent/trademark imbedded in the mold so they can't give our molds to another factor for profit.
I think you missed the point of my post.
I was saying I don't believe it. If there's truly 1,000 designers working on phones then their result is pretty pathetic. That's 40,000 man-hours per week (not sure why they're called MAN hours) and from what I've seen of their phones, it just doesn't make any sense.
O.k. I looked it up. So MAN hours is what a MAN can accomplish in an hours worth of work. (I know it sounded simple, so i assumed it meant something more than that.) That's rather denigrating... I do however agree if it's physical labor.
Good read, but seriously a pretty crazy post size wise? I think a link or two would have done just fine.
Tallest, now that everyone's read it? Can you shorten it? It's bigger than the originating article.