Samsung Ordered To Hand Over Unreleased Designs To Apple

An anonymous reader writes with an article in Edible Apple "Samsung last Wednesday was ordered to hand over to Apple five as-of-yet unreleased products so that Apple can compare them to their own offerings ahead of litigation. Apple of course claims that Samsung's products blatantly copy the look and feel of Apple's iOS devices."

Comments

Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[eldavojohn]

The current headline reads:

Samsung Ordered to Hand Over Unreleased Designs to Apple

Uh huh ... well, when I go to the original source cited in the article I find this piece of text:

She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.

(Emphasis mine.) I must confess that one does have to read the entire article of Courthouse News to get to that somewhat important and relevant tidbit but that is asking a bit much for an editor. Or perhaps that was known but "Court Counsel to Judge Samsung Prototypes" just doesn't boil up the anti-Apple blood like the current headline does?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[alen]

this is 2011 and the Age of Blogs. Get with the program

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[RazzleFrog]

The very article you linked to says the same thing:

"Samsung Electronics was told Wednesday to fork over five of its not-yet-released mobile phones to Apple."

And I am pretty sure it would be hard to put this news in a light that wasn't anti-Apple.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Or perhaps that was known but "Court Counsel to Judge Samsung Prototypes" just doesn't boil up the anti-Apple blood like the current headline does?

Welp, this is an ad-supported site.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[RazorSharp]

this is 2011 and the Age of Blogs. Get with the program

Who needs information when you have presumption?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[XiaoMing]

I think it's even more impressive how TFA poses

The obvious question is how Apple can request to see products that haven’t been released yet...

without even remotely taking the time to follow through on their own motto of "Apple news, rumors, and analysis".

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

We're not here to learn, we're here to argue. Slashdot is a game, not a news site.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Bing Tsher E]

This is apple.slashdot.org, not slashdot.org.

How much Apple is paying for the subdomain has not yet been determined.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[pushing-robot]

Also, the five "unreleased designs" are:

The Galaxy S2,
the Galaxy Tab 10.1,
the Galaxy Tab 8.9,
the Infuse 4G, and finally
the Droid Charge

"Unreleased designs?" Seriously?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[idontgno]

we're here to argue.

No we're not.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

How much Apple is paying for the subdomain has not yet been determined.

Zero. Go to Apple.slashdot.org, look at the number of comments for each story, and you'll see why.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Winning! Bitches.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[pushing-robot]

Addendum:

The three phones can be purchased today (the Galaxy S2 may not ship for about two weeks). The Galaxy Tab 10.1 will be officially available June 6. The Galaxy Tab 8.9 will be in stores "very early summer".

Samsung has 30 days to provide these gadgets.

According to TFA the judge herself "highlighted that Samsung has 'already released images and samples of its forthcoming products to the media and members of the public.'"

Industrial espionage this ain't.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[milkmage]

Apple didn't "request" anything. The judge saw enough graphical evidence in apple's case, she decided a "preview" was in order.

"Without expressing an opinion on the merits of Apple's claims, the court acknowledged that "Apple has produced images of Samsung products and other evidence that provide a reasonable basis for Apple's belief that Samsung's new products are designed to mimic Apple's products."

there's an image from APPLs filing here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/24/samsung_ordered_to_show_its_new_prototypes_to_apple.html

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[milkmage]

I think legally it's correct (enough)

When company hires a law firm to represent them.. that FIRM IS them.. (you're speaking on their behalf in a court of law).. that's why you hire lawyers.. to represent you.

the fact that Apple employees don't get to see it is secondary - all it guards against is Apple possibly taking queues from the Sammy's next iterations.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[camperdave]

If you're going to link, at least link to the actual skit rather than the script.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[smitty97]

Sorry, this is abuse. You want room 12A.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Kjella]

Who needs information when you have presumption?

And YouTube-videos to back you up. I've noticed that almost no matter how crackpot the person is, there's always a youtube video that supports his delusions. Preferably a really long one, and when I refuse to spend 30 minutes of my life to see it because you can't use ten seconds to tell me what it's about, then I don't know or understand anything and he wins any discussion by default, if you saw the video you'd understand. Like the pothead who linked me to a vid where among other things, it cured cancer. I mean, seriously... How 'tard can you get?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[jbezorg]

Interesting that a link to a video is preferred over the script in a thread where the root post is a complaint that nobody reads...

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Ced_Ex]

we're here to argue.

No we're not.

YES. WE. ARE!!!!!

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

2011 - The Age of Stupidity. Have you been outside lately? America and maybe the entire world has reached an all time high of stupidity and irrationality.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Chris Pimlott]

It's worth noting that 5000 Galaxy Tab 10.1's were given away to Google I/O attendees earlier this month.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[umghhh]

The headline is indeed incorrect yet I find the uh uh shouts bout 'anti-Apple blood' a bit far reaching. This is in line with my experience with any so far identified apple user. Admit - how many iProducts do you posses?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[camperdave]

Well, to be fair, the point the original poster was making was to go to the source, not a transcript.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[jeremyp]

No it wasn't.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[jbezorg]

(Rings bell) Good Morning.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[XiaoMing]

I'm somewhat confused as to how filing a motion for expedited discovery during a lawsuit doesn't count as "requesting" anything. Apple only stopped short of filing an injunction (something on the order of a CnD most likely).

Source:
Any of the articles linked so far, including yours.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

YES. WE. ARE!!!!!

Nuh uh. I've been reading all of the slashdot headlines on this topic and that makes me well informed, so you are wrong!

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is suing Samsung, is it safe to assume the "outside counsel" will also be paid by Apple?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[HermMunster]

If Samsung is the company helping Apple design their product, and if Samsung is the one providing chips and layout internally, and if the design is sufficient in that the design matters, and Samsung is using this knowledge of pre-released products in their own products close enough to or before Apple's launch, then we have a matter for discussion, though there's likely no matter of legal issue as you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea.

Apple tried copyrighting the interface of the computer desktop and lost. They'll loose this too, certainly, without question. They are judging that Samsung will evaluate the potential loss from a broken relationship over this matter and that they will agree out of court to settle by terminating their product design efforts. If Samsung is realistic and future oriented they will not. They're size-ably larger than Apple overall. Their valuation is greater and their revenue is greater. Apple wants to set a precedent to others that they can and will fight in this territory, even if it is just a matter of keeping others out of the area of designs that are similar to Apple.

Apple has everything to loose and little to gain except if they can be successful with a "settlement" with Samsung. If Samsung does settle it will mean that most other companies will likely settle also.

Letting outside council look at the designs means that the outside council will have to "brief" Apple, and that ultimately the information gained will fall open in court, unless the Judge rules against Apple as a matter of law. Apple could easily have the case dismissed as the judge could still determine that this is a matter of law issue and that there no factual claims that need to be determined by the jury. If outside council states that the design is close enough to Apple's the judge probably will still rule in favor of Samsung as a matter of law as the judge knows that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it, and unless it is exact in every way that matters the judge will rule a matter of law that Apple has no claim.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[LordLimecat]

Reading slashdot is kind of like a game, where the goal is to see if you can anticipate in what ways the summary is false, prior to reading the article. For instance, in this case, it might have been that Samsung wasnt actually involved, or that there wasnt a court case but a tersley worded request; turns out that Apple DOESNT get the unreleased designs.

I find it to be a good form of mental exercise.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[ScrewMaster]

(Rings bell) Good Morning.

Sniveling git.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[ScrewMaster]

all it guards against is Apple possibly taking queues from the Sammy's next iterations.

Cue the grammar nazis.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[not-my-real-name]

You pestilential excrement of vermin! Oh sorry, you wanted an argument. This is abuse.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You pestilential excrement of vermin! Oh sorry, you wanted an argument. This is abuse.

But what if it's an honest appraisal? Like, if I say FireFly is overrated, is that an argument or abuse?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[hairyfeet]

/Marches in in a Major's outfit and Tutu/ ALRIGHT THEN! That is enough! Stop the sketch! It is just much too silly!

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[not-my-real-name]

You pestilential excrement of vermin! Oh sorry, you wanted an argument. This is abuse.

But what if it's an honest appraisal? Like, if I say FireFly is overrated, is that an argument or abuse?

But abuse generally goes beyond honesty into the realm of colourful metaphors. Abuse is also often stated as fact rather than opinion and doesn't readily allow discussion. For example I could say, "OS X is the most insecure operating system because Safari automatically downloads and opens files from the internet." or I could say "OS X is as secure as a pork chop and a pit bull convention and you're an idiot for using it." Also, an argument generally involves dialog while abuse is generally one way.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[RoFLKOPTr]

Also, an argument generally involves dialog while abuse is generally one way.

No it isn't.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[mapinguari]

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you seem to think that Apple's outside counsel, to whom Apple pays ridiculous amounts of money, is not somehow beholden to Apple?  I mean, seriously?  Who do you think they work for?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579309010801
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

lol

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[intheshelter]

Hey, you posted this same thing on the iPhone encryption comments. How much are YOU being paid to be a troll?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[Eponymous Hero]

but it does cure cancer. didn't you watch the video?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect

[nbetcher]

She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.

(Emphasis mine.) I must confess that one does have to read the entire article of Courthouse News to get to that somewhat important and relevant tidbit but that is asking a bit much for an editor. Or perhaps that was known but "Court Counsel to Judge Samsung Prototypes" just doesn't boil up the anti-Apple blood like the current headline does?

You quoted the exact same thing last time this topic came up. In fact, you have a history of being pro-Apple, so I'm not sure you're any less biased.

no surprise

[rhodes187]

I've noticed many of their phones and the Galaxy tablet look almost identical to their Apple counterparts.... Apple should come out with a TV that mimics exactly what Samsung's current TV line looks like (but with Apple TV baked in).

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Will people stop it with the stupid "Apple should sell a TV with a built-in AppleTV in it" idea.

TVs aren't computers. Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television. That's why the low-cost AppleTV exists. You add it to your current television.

* Posted from Safari on a Mac mini, so don't accuse me of being anti-Apple.

Re:no surprise

[RazzleFrog]

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

Re:no surprise

[Haedrian]

Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television.

Sounds lucrative to me...

Re:no surprise

[kimvette]

I'd still choose the Samsung, because it will likely have a high-contrast Samsung LCD panel, and of course Samsung customer service, and out-of-warranty repairs are often covered by Samsung but when not, quake-induced shortages aside, it's usually easier to get replacement parts from Samsung than Apple.

Whereas the AppleTV-embedded TV will probably be orphaned in 2-3 years and no longer work because the new AppleTV firmware will no longer support the older model, and besides, out-of-warranty repairs will be pricey because parts will be hard to come by. Oh, and there will be no slots for memory cards, no USB ports, and certainly no cablecard ports.

Seriously though, I would stick with Samsung because televisions is what Samsung does best, and I'd go to Apple for a smartphone because smartphones are what Apple does best, even despite the "walled garden" mentality.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple shouldn't build a TV, IMO. TVs pretty much work OK already. They should get into autosound, which is a market that desperately needs their sort of disruption.

Re:no surprise

[rhodes187]

I honestly was just being facetious, while I wouldn't rule it out, I don't think an Apple branded TV would be a great idea.... I was just bringing up an eye for an eye move by Apple (they copy us, we copy them)...

Re:no surprise

[denis-The-menace]

Then please explain why it takes 10 seconds for my new tv sets to boot up with "The please wait..." message.
Oh, it's also has upgradable firmware via the USB port

(Hint: it's a cheapy store brand, under $300, 2 years ago)

Re:no surprise

[chrb]

I've noticed many of their phones and the Galaxy tablet look almost identical to their Apple counterparts....

So what? You can't copyright "look and feel". And you can't patent something unless it is innovative - a thin touchscreen phone/computer with rounded edges is not innovative - it's obvious. There are many episodes of Star Trek that show the concept of a touch screen computer that would qualify as prior art.

Re:no surprise

[gnasher719]

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

As the owner of two MacBooks, two iPods, two Samsung TVs and a Samsung Colour Laserprinter, I can tell you that a newish 40" Samsung TV has a very distinctive look (which is actually quite nice, and one of the reasons for me to buy it), and if someone copied that look then I think Samsung would be very upset, and rightfully so. Just as Apple is quite upset about someone copying the looks of the iPhone.

Re:no surprise

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Next up : Dell. Hey if you got to copy so

Re:no surprise

[shutdown -p now]

I shrugged at that myself, but then I've bought Samsung Galaxy S II a few days ago. And you know what? It really tries very hard to look like an iPhone. I don't just mean the full-glass front screen and a hardware "home" button. Their replacement launcher, TouchWiz, is also an iOS lookalike, with four icons on the bottom. App drawer is replaced to work more like iOS, too, with automatic sorting of icons replaced by manual positioning on a number of screens. Heck, they even changed tab switching UI in the browser to look identical to iPhone, except that the close button is (-) instead of (x).

So, it's not just Apple being silly here. Mind you, Samsung beats them on some other points (like screen size and contrast/brightness, or sheer hardware power), but they definitely do copy the design.

Re:no surprise

[UnknowingFool]

You can't copyright look and feel; however, thus is a patent suit. You can patent and trademark designs. I think if you started a soda company called Carl's Cola with similar red cans/bottles and using the same script as Coca-Cola, I think their lawyers would like to meet with you. Apple has won before on look and feel suits. They won against eMachines who came out with a bubbly blue all in one PC that they felt looked too much like the original iMac.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

Apple has white iPhone and iPad models. Maybe they did a design patent on those. :)

Re:no surprise

[demonbug]

Their replacement launcher, TouchWiz,...

Eeew.

Re:no surprise

[geekoid]

except other then the fact they are rectangle, black and have a touch screen, they look nothing alike.

Re:no surprise

[geekoid]

Its not copyright, it's a design patent.

Re:no surprise

[Ecuador]

No, I am sure it is more than that. Apple on the other hand has always radically new designs. Think about the first ipod. Totally radical. Nothing at all like a 1958 radio (http://www.flickr.com/photos/benarent/4248023281/).

Re:no surprise

[sootman]

Have you seen these things? It's pretty damn blatant.

Re:no surprise

[sznupi]

Rectangular and black with a touchscreen... nothing at all like the GRiDpad? (and...); best of all: manufactured by Samsung, "modified from the Samsung PenMaster which never made it to commercial distribution"

Re:no surprise

[RazzleFrog]

Looks like every other smartphone to me.

Re:no surprise

[RazzleFrog]

I had my white droid 2 global months before the white iPhones came out. So maybe Motorola should be suing Apple over the color white?

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been bothering me though. While it might seem second nature now, just a year-and-a-half ago, every phone in the world had buttons buttons and more buttons, and the number of buttons was growing, as it had for years. Apple comes along, developes a product with no buttons, and within 6 months everyone expects it to be the "only way to go". Of course there are some overarching, general design characteristics that you can't patent. But at the same time, if it's such a huge general paradigm shift, you'd think it would deserve the most amount of credit! Basically, the entire smartphone industry has adopted one general design characteristic that Apple made famous... and it's so ubiquitous that anyone would laugh if Apple tried to patent it.

This is what frusterates me. A company does something so unspeakably correct that it becomes second nature, and can't patent it. While another company does some very focused thing that doesn't really a whole lot of logical planning, and suddenly can make a whole lot of money off of it.

Who's to say that general design decisions don't deserve financial compansation? Apple basically launched the "era of touch"... maybe with a little help from Nintendo. Yet "personal satisfaction" is the only compansation they get for getting us there. It doesn't seem unjustified if they ask for maybe 1% of the profits from all other mainstream phone/ereader devices. Sure, they didn't invent the technology, however, from a marketing standpoint, noone would be doing it if they hadn't made it popular.

I know this is probably an unpopular stance, but it just doesn't seem right.

Re:no surprise

[Dogtanian]

Apple basically launched the "era of touch"... maybe with a little help from Nintendo. Yet "personal satisfaction" is the only compansation they get for getting us there.

Yeah, it's a real shame that they didn't benefit in terms of gaining a very significant market share or by making tons of money by selling countless iPhones. Poor Apple!

Seriously, what on *earth* are you on that you think Apple hasn't received significant reward for the iPhone's success?! Sheesh.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

How many thumbs can you fit across a 2in (5cm) wide screen? The answer is 4. 4 icons across is an obvious design choice given the physical dimensions of the screen.

Placing static virtual buttons at the bottom of the screen again is an obvious design choice because the bottom of the screen is near the physical button(s). Placing physical buttons at the bottom is also an obvious choice because placing them at the top would make the user's hand obscure the screen.

In other words, tasking separate teams of designers and engineers with designing a touchscreen phone, it is not all that surprising that some (if not nearly all) would converge on similar user interface elements if given the same starting constraints.

Re:no surprise

[shutdown -p now]

Like I said, it's not something that is easily glanced from screenshots. I was similarly skeptical of any such claims in past discussions on Slashdot. But seeing the thing live, I changed my mind. Most of all, the tab switching UI in the browser convinced me that it's deliberate copying - it's not just similar, it's practically identical. Icon tweaks can be explained as coincidence, but this - no way.

Also keep in mind that Samsung was not designing this from grounds-up - they had stock Android to begin with. That also has 4 icons across, and it has fixed buttons at the bottom. And yet stock Android UI looks nothing like iPhone (e.g. the fixed buttons on the bottom visually distinct from app icons), while TouchWiz does. It goes down even to minor touches - e.g. stock Android has five screens, and, like on iPhone, you can flick left/right to switch. But the default screen there is the "middle" one (i.e. you have two on the left, and two on the right). In TouchWiz, the default screen is the leftmost one, so any icons you add always fill up screens to the right. Furthermore, if you flick to the left from the leftmost screen, you get to the "search screen", just like on iPhone - and visually very similar as well.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Guess what. The design patents on a 1958 radio are long since expired. Jonathan Ive talks about Dieter Rams as his inspiration, and that radio in particular.

Samsung on the other hand are making a rather closer copy of a current product, that's well protected by current design patents. And they are not accepting the fact.

See the difference?

Re:no surprise

[chrb]

Exactly. Patents are supposed to be something innovative, something non-obvious to an expert in the field. Making a phone or tablet with a touch screen and rounded edges is obvious to everybody.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Every other smartphone since the iPhone, perhaps...

Smartphone's certainly didn't look like that before Apple created the design everyone wants to copy.

Re:no surprise

[ScrewMaster]

Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television.

Sounds lucrative to me...

Really. AC just described, rather succinctly I might add, Apple's entire business model

Re:no surprise

[ScrewMaster]

Then please explain why it takes 10 seconds for my new tv sets to boot up with "The please wait..." message. Oh, it's also has upgradable firmware via the USB port

(Hint: it's a cheapy store brand, under $300, 2 years ago)

Yeah. My Samsung DLP is Linux-based (source is available online even: hurray for GPL compliance) and you can upgrade the firmware the same way. Might even be able to do it over the Internet, but I haven't tried that.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Droid 2 came out in 2010. White iPhone 3G was out in 2008. Sorry about that.

Re:no surprise

[ScrewMaster]

Their replacement launcher, TouchWiz,...

Eeew.

No shit. Somebody in Samsung's marketing department ought to be demoted for that one.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Apple's display beat Samsung's in what's certainly the most technical comparative review of mobile displays. No reason to think Apple wouldn't source a better LCD than Samsung if they were to create a TV.

http://www.displaymate.com/Smartphone_ShootOut_1.htm

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

You've obviously never heard of "design patents". You can certainly protect the look of products.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Strange then that no-one else came out with a smartphone that looked like an iPhone before Apple did. If it was so obvious. So very strange that it was only after Apple's design that it suddenly became obvious to everyone.

Actually, that's a sign of a truly great design. That it seems obvious after the fact. Even though no one had done it before.

Re:no surprise

[exomondo]

Apple should come out with a TV that mimics exactly what Samsung's current TV line looks like (but with Apple TV baked in).

TV makers always use design elements from each other, there isn't much there to work with, same as with tablets.

Re:no surprise

[exomondo]

This is what frusterates me. A company does something so unspeakably correct that it becomes second nature, and can't patent it. While another company does some very focused thing that doesn't really a whole lot of logical planning, and suddenly can make a whole lot of money off of it.

How is that any different from software patents? Or are you pro-software patents?
I'm not interested in arguing the points of software patents but if you are against software patents then your stance on this issue for the reasons you outlined would make no sense.

Re:no surprise

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://vault.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179102433

02/09/2006 LONDON — South Korean consumer giant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is preparing to file lawsuits against a number of mobile phone handset makers in Taiwan, mainland China and Hong Kong, who it alleges have copied its products and breached its patents, according to a Taiwan government online report.

The allegations in the lawsuits include that companies copy the designs and functions of Samsung mobile phones and leak secret Samsung documents, the report said.

http://www.nokiapower.com/index.php?showtopic=5945&mode=threaded&pid=22391

Telsda handsets resemble close to Nokia,Sony Ericsson, Motorola, and Samsung handsets as the image shows. There are some minor cosmetic differences between Telsda and the big manufacturer handsets, but the overall aesthetic design is darn close to say Telsda copied.

Re:no surprise

[nahdude812]

So if the comparison is mostly based on the software, why would Samsung have to show Apple 5 upcoming hardware models? As GP points out, square, black, touchscreen isn't exactly an incredibly novel design.

Re:no surprise

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I've noticed many of their phones and the Galaxy tablet look almost identical to their Apple counterparts....

So what? You can't copyright "look and feel".

Yes, you can - and that's ignoring that Apple lost the Microsoft case because it was changed to a matter of contract law via a licensing agreement, instead of a copyright case.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's display beat Samsung's in what's certainly the most technical comparative review of mobile displays. No reason to think Apple wouldn't source a better LCD than Samsung if they were to create a TV.

So because they can source a good (but not the best) panel for their mobile device when compared to one of samsung's many mobile devices that means they automatically must be able to source a panel better than anything samsung is capable of for a market they have never entered before? You really are an apple shill with that moronic logic aren't you.

Re:no surprise

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Next up : Dell. Hey if you got to copy so

Hey, don't knock it, it's the thinnest notebook! Based on Dell internal analysis as at February 2011. Based on a thickness comparison (front and rear measurements) of other 15" laptop PCs manufactured by HP, Acer, Toshiba, Asus, Lenovo, Samsung, Sony, MSI. No comparison made with Apple or other manufacturers not listed."

Re:no surprise

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not Apple nor Apple fan, so I don't know. I would guess that they consider hardware design part of the overall "lookalike" picture - not sufficiently strong on its own, but an important part of the whole thing.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no problem here, because you can't patent visual designs (so far as I know). There's no possible way of confusing the phone with iPhone, since it clearly says "Samsung" in large letters above the screen. Apple has always claimed that others are merely copying them (remember "Redmond, start your photocopiers" poster?), and that they remain ahead because they truly innovate. Well, in that case they shouldn't have any problems competing with Samsung, same visual design or not.

My post was only about just how similar this thing looks to iPhone, in my experience; not a commentary on whether Apple is justified in bringing Samsung to court over it.

Re:no surprise

[dragonturtle69]

It buffers the content, processing it before display. Watch some event tied to a clock, like New Years, the TV display is not quite live.

Re:no surprise

[Compaqt]

Yeah, it's like, is every manufacturer supposed to have a different form factor?

Apple gets rectangular, because everybody knows Steve Jobs invented it.

M$ - triangle?

Samsung: Pentagon.

Nokia: Hexagon

After all the companies divvy up the polygons, they'll leave a black bi-gon for OpenMoko.

Re:no surprise

[Compaqt]

You might be right (I haven't played with the Samsung).

At the same time, I don't think there's a cause for legal remedy here.

Example from fashion: You make a exact copy of someone's designer dress. All the buttons ("icons") will be in the same exact spot, colors the same, etc. But there's nothing you can do about it in the courts (even though some bought-off Senators are trying to change that).

Re:no surprise

[dunkelfalke]

By that argument the iPhone was a blatant ripoff of a HTC Himalaya.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Huh? That was just a Pocket PC with GSM. iPhone looks nothing like it. Neither hardware nor software. http://handheld.softpedia.com/devices/HTC/HTC-Himalaya--Qtek-2060-246.shtml

Re:no surprise

[intheshelter]

Ah, the sarcastic "invented it" argument. Perhaps you don't understand the point people are making. Apple didn't have to invent the rectangle, it's the sheer mass of almost exact duplicates in the Samsung user interface that leads anyone with a brain (and doesn't hate apple) to conclude Samsung is actively copying the design of the iPhone to try and get customers.

Forest or Trees? Which one are you focusing on?

Re:no surprise

[nahdude812]

It seems like Apple has had a hard time lately commanding the same sort of media attention they have enjoyed in years past; I wonder how much of this is just a ploy to keep their name in the news while getting a dig in on the competition.

Re:no surprise

[dunkelfalke]

I know how it looks like, had two of them. It was a very good device, actually. As for Apple copying HTC - well, iPhone had a touchscreen of the same size and also rounded corners. As this old HTC phone did. Apple's argumentation about Samsung is more or less in the same ballpark.

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

Apple's argumentation about Samsung is more or less in the same ballpark.

Who are you trying to convince? We both know it's not.

Re:no surprise

[dunkelfalke]

Is it a royal "we" or it is your split personality speaking?

Re:no surprise

[BasilBrush]

It's the "we" a doctor will use when talking to a delirious or senile patient.

I have lots of Samsung Phones

[__aasehi2499]

And none of them have antenna/reception issues, so where is the copying taking place?

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[MarkGriz]

Well presumably they are only going to copy the good ideas, not the stupid ones.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[UnknowingFool]

So far Apple claims most of the Samsung designs have copied the 3G/3GS design. If they unreleased products have the same external antenna design, what would be your response?

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[chrb]

TFA quotes the judge:

Because these claims are subject to consumer confusion and “ordinary observer” standards, the products themselves and the packaging in which they are sold are likely to be central to any motion for preliminary injunction.

"Consumer confusion" - Apple is arguing that consumers find it difficult to tell the difference between a Galaxy S and an iPhone and might buy a Samsung product when they meant to buy an Apple one.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Without that pretentious little apple logo and the "Designed in California" placard I'm not entirely sure how a consumer would be confused.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's for in 2 years time when they finally get around to copying the current designs.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[MacGyver2210]

My response would be along the lines of "Why would Samsung copy Apple's colossal blunder?"

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[UnknowingFool]

So far Apple has accused Samsung of copying the design of an older model. If Samsung's newest phones copy Apple's current model, your response is not to acknowledge that Apple may be right; your response is to levy insults at Apple. Interesting response.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Well presumably they are only going to copy the good ideas, not the stupid ones.

Not so. Apple's claim shows that Samsung have copied Apple's dock connector design too.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Bassman59]

Well presumably they are only going to copy the good ideas, not the stupid ones.

Not so. Apple's claim shows that Samsung have copied Apple's dock connector design too.

Damn, I wish I had mod points ...

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Bassman59]

Without that pretentious little apple logo and the "Designed in California" placard I'm not entirely sure how a consumer would be confused.

Clearly, you have not met many consumers. Most of them are as dumb as rocks.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Hamsterdan]

That's not really nice to rocks...

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the popularity of Apple products.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[BasilBrush]

Apple's dock connector is great. One socket for USB, control signals, audio and video. iPods and iPhones just drop into a huge variety of peripherals, even docks in cars.

The only reason to be annoyed about it is if you didn't buy an iPod or iPhone, and thus can't use all those peripherals with your device. In which case it's not Apple's business to make you happy.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[BasilBrush]

It's just a logo. Every company has one. This one is particularly simple. An apple in one colour. What exactly do you imagine is pretentious about it? Or about the fact that the products are designed in California?

For sure Apple's packaging is the best designed in the business. Just as the contents are. But that's a very different thing from being pretentious. They are the real deal, not pretenders.

Maybe you're just someone that's happier with lots of visual spew on your packaging. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

If Samsung's newest phones copy Apple's current model, your response is not to acknowledge that Apple may be right; your response is to levy insults at Apple. Interesting response.

he said Why would Samsung copy Apple's colossal blunder?, it couldn't be more obvious that he is acknowledging those claims...of course you only see the comment against apple and leap to your blind fanboi rage defence.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[sydneyfong]

eh.

" Why would I want to to kill Mr. Jones? " is not an admission of murder. It's more like denial.

I'm not a lawyer, but if your argument holds, you're going to be a great one.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer confusion will definitely happen when people don't buy the samsung phone because they think it is an iphone.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones

[UnknowingFool]

There was no admission or denial. The response simply skirted the question by asking another question. The response went to wonder about the motivation and at the same time levy insults.

"We found your fingerprints on th weapon that murdered Mr. Smith. Did you kill him?"

"Why would I want to kill that low-life, cheating coward?"

How can they?

[DinDaddy]

When they haven't seen the iphone 5 to copy it yet?

Re:How can they?

[Bing Tsher E]

In order to prove they aren't copying it, Apple should be forced to hand over the iPhone 5 design to Samsung.

Re:How can they?

[LoganDzwon]

Maybe this is not the case since with Apple "unreleased" means non-apple people can not get them yet. Where as Samsung it means... well pretty much all of those 5 devices are already on the market. The Tab 8.9 is not, but it is just a slightly resized version of the Tab 10.1

Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[ThinkWeak]

The article references:

"Helping their cause, Apple presented to the judge a news report which quotes a Samsung executive saying that they will have to improve parts of their upcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in light of the thinner iPad 2 from Apple."

Someone tell me how this is worth anything in the legal world? Of course Samsung would want to improve their product to compete with a product currently on the market. How is this relevant?

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since we started adding '+internet' to everything and calling it a new invention, the law has gone spastic.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[rahvin112]

Because, if you accept Apple's legal theory that anything that looks like their product is an illegal copy then you understand. Of course they tried this with MS in the 90's (suing over the look and feel of MacOS) and got soundly trounced that doesn't mean that in the current environment they will lose. There has been a gradual shift in attitudes that copying the look or use of a product is illegal use of IP. That there is no basis in law for that doesn't stop them, after all half the patents now granted are on nothing more than look and feel patents that should have never been approved.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[UnknowingFool]

Except Apple did not lose on the merits of their case; they lost because they signed a crappy deal with MS that allowed MS to copy their designs. Apple later won against eMachines for trying to copy the iMac so there is plenty of basis for these types of lawsuits. I think if Honda came out with a bubbly sedan that looks like a Volkswagen Beetle, they're going to get sued by Volkswagen.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[geekoid]

Even worse, the judge made an unreasonable interpretation of the contract.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[RightSaidFred99]

Umm, clearly you missed the part about Apple trademarking, patenting, and holding the copyright for "thinness". Ergo, if Samsung is trying to be thinner (like the iPad 2, which they are clearly copying this thinness from) then they are violating Apple's IP.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[pandrijeczko]

It could be argued that Microsoft bailing out Apple to the tune of $150 million in 1997 is one of the main reasons they are here today.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[BasilBrush]

Absolutely. In Jobs' absence, Apple had been in a downward spiral. That $150 million really helped Jobs save what was left of Apple. But Microsoft didn't do it for charity. It served their purposes at the time not to see their final PC OS competitor go out of business, as they were facing monopoly abuse lawsuits.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It could be argued that Microsoft bailing out Apple to the tune of $150 million in 1997 is one of the main reasons they are here today.

Yeah, because a company that had over a billion in cash needed those $150 million. Not to mention that this was part of a settlement that Microsoft had to pay.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[pandrijeczko]

It's irrelevant as to the reasons *WHY* they got the bailout money - they got it at a time they needed it. And who knows what would have happened to them had they not got it...

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[pandrijeczko]

I accept that a US billion is 100 million whilst a (my) UK billion is 1000 million.

This Apple page does say $144 million in January 1998, but that would equate to -$6 million if you take out the $150 million Microsoft gave them as a bailout. i.e. a loss without Microsoft's help.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I accept that a US billion is 100 million whilst a (my) UK billion is 1000 million.

This Apple page does say $144 million in January 1998, but that would equate to -$6 million if you take out the $150 million Microsoft gave them as a bailout. i.e. a loss without Microsoft's help.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between "cash" and "positive cash flow" says a lot, but certainly not that you are right. You only have to search the second "cash" on the page to find: "Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $1,193" - that would be million and for FQ1 1998

Case closed.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[BasilBrush]

Irrelevant to what? You brought the fact up as a non-sequiteur. So the balanced view is no less relevant than the one sided view you posted.

I suspect actually the guarantee to continue producing Office for Mac for X years was worth more to Apple at the time. Though the importance of that has faded over the years.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime?

[burnetd]

I feel an usual need to correct here. MS didn't bail out Apple they got caught with their hands in the Cookie Jar copying Quicktime code and settled with Apple.

coke or pepsi

[Valhemmer]

Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

Re:coke or pepsi

[Pieroxy]

This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

No no, in this world, it is called "intellectual property". Welcome to the world where money can buy ideas.

Re:coke or pepsi

[Anonymous Coward]

Still bullshit, coke or pepsi summed it up!

Re:coke or pepsi

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not called that, because that's a scurrilous propaganda term. It's an intellectual monopoly that should be abolished.

Re:coke or pepsi

[CharlyFoxtrot]

No only if you purposefully make them look so much alike that it can potentially confuse the consumer. Like when you make a nearly identical handset and change the icons to very closely resemble the iPhone ones. Now personally I don't think this should be against the law, but the first time I saw a commercial for one of these phones I do remember thinking to myself they were shameless iPhone rip offs. I'm not the only one either :

First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design

Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity SGH-A867 (AT&T)

Samsung Galaxy S Review : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS. The glossy black plastic and metal-effect bezel both echo Apple’s second/third-gen smartphone"

Re:coke or pepsi

[gnasher719]

Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone. The Windows 7 phone doesn't look one bit like an iPhone. Now take one of these Samsung phones. They don't look one bit like a Windows 7 phone, but they look very, very similar to an iPhone.

Microsoft didn't copy Apple, they designed these phones themselves. Samsung copied. Apple has design patents that list about ten particular design choices, and Samsung copied all of them. Two or three design choices matching could have been coincidence, and most importantly the result would not look like an iPhone. All design choices matching means it looks the same, it is copied, and the copy is illegal.

Re:coke or pepsi

[E IS mC(Square)]

And you conveniently forgot - Apple copied LG Prada. What's your point?

Re:coke or pepsi

[geekoid]

"... but they look very, very similar to an iPhone. "
I disagree. I don't find the to be unreasonably similar at all.

Re:coke or pepsi

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's controversial. Despite a lot of bluster LG never did file a lawsuit so they probably didn't have much of a case.

Re:coke or pepsi

[UnknowingFool]

If you make soda that tastes like Coca-Cola, you don't have any issues. There are many generics today. If you make your cans and bottles look like Coca-Cola or Pepsi ones with similar color, logos, fonts, etc; you are going to get your ass sued. That's the distinction Apple is making and why they didn't sue LG or Motorola or Nokia or RIM for copying design.

Re:coke or pepsi

[UnknowingFool]

I didn't conveniently forget; I just disagree with that assessment. LG does too as they had a chance to sue but didn't.

Re:coke or pepsi

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Unless you flipped the names around. If Apple copied Samsung I'd make a mint selling torches and pitchforks.

Re:coke or pepsi

[VortexCortex]

If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone.

Hey, on my Gnome2 desktop, I have an application menu that's pretty much just like XP's start menu, and I've got a row of buttons that allow me to toggle to the active window. Windows can be minimized, restored or closed using the familiar XP icons in the familiar XP order and button placement ( _ [] X ). The title bars are at the top, and can be used as handles to position the windows, the scroll bars are on the left and bottom. The application meus are at the top, and sport the same basic menu names: "File Edit ... Help", in the same order as XP, and contain roughly the same functions (About is in the Help menu, exit is in the file menu, even though those options should be in a Misc menu, IMHO)

There is a desktop, with a picture background and icons that can be double (or single by option) clicked to launch applications or open files. A file browser with a list of common locations on the left, and a pane with folder icons for directories...

Apple had many of these same UI elements on the Macs -- Gem Desktop did too (on MSDOS), and so did many other shells.

All these damn UI designs are iterative, obvious, and it's ridiculous to allow patents over them -- same goes for smart phones. What happens when the desktop UI goes 3D. Are we suddenly going to stop arranging our office furniture in certain ways to avoid Apple UI patents?

In the late 80s, I made electronic motor control panels with each button containing the circuitry to tell the input processor its function. All the switches and buttons could then be rearranged -- plugged into any square slot on the input grid -- without having to rewire the motor control system, saved my dad's company tons of money; To meet a customer's design we just cut out the holes in the cover panel, slapped the buttons in the holes, and put stickers or etched labels on the buttons. Multiple input panels could be ganged to control more complex systems --- Much like how iOS has multiple "panels" of distinct movable buttons that each perform specific functions (or launch different apps), and can be re-arranged in a grid.

I was 9 years old when I "invented" panels of generic sockets with specific pin-outs! I'm no genius, this shit is Obvious, and was probably done before I thought of it.

USER INTERFACE HAS BEEN DONE, X (on a computer), or X (on a smartphone) shouldn't be patentable if X is fucking obvious. Next progress retarding patent please.

Re:coke or pepsi

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, because people will totally get confused by "Samsung Android phone" and "Apple iPhone". Looks aren't the distinguishing factor here.

Re:coke or pepsi

[RightSaidFred99]

Only.. there are only so many valid design choices for what a modern smartphone looks like. Patents like this are idiotic anyway. What's novel about "Durr, I'll use a chrome strip around the thing to bling it up!".

Re:coke or pepsi

[Pieroxy]

Again, no no! It's not bullshit, it's called a sugared beverage. It's actually not bad tasting.

Re:coke or pepsi

[UnknowingFool]

Other manufacturers have done it. Look at the Droid X; it doesn't have the same edges or bevels. It doesn't arrange the icons the same. In the soda industry, there are very few differences and choices for bottles and cans; but no one copies Coca-Cola or Pepsi designs. Why is that?

Re:coke or pepsi

[oobayly]

I'm massaging your ego here which may or may not be a good thing, but I would say you're certainly above average intelligence if you did that at 9. The sad truth is that doing something obvious doesn't appear to be an option anymore - you have no idea when you'll get screwed over by some lawyers hiding under a bridge.

You guys in the states have an insane patent system and we in the UK have to put up with insane privacy laws and lack of real free speech. Fortunately we're doing our best to destroy it [with the help of twitter]. Bloody hell, I never thought I'd say something like that. I can only wish you luck with your demons.

Re:coke or pepsi

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Still bullshit, coke or pepsi summed it up!

Coke? As in "coke bottle"?

Re:coke or pepsi

[Trogre]

... or just didn't want to piss off Apple for some reason.

Re:coke or pepsi

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Only.. there are only so many valid design choices for what a modern smartphone looks like. Patents like this are idiotic anyway. What's novel about "Durr, I'll use a chrome strip around the thing to bling it up!".

Funny you say that in defense of Samsung of all companies

Re:coke or pepsi

[E IS mC(Square)]

Because they are not assholes like Apple?

Re:coke or pepsi

[Carewolf]

I too doubt Apple copied LG, but there are essentially two conclusions to draw from that story:

1) Apple copied LG
2) Two devices can look similar without copying each other.

I find case 2) to be more interesting to the Samsung-Apple case.

Re:coke or pepsi

[intheshelter]

Or yourself apparently. . . try not to be a douchebag.

Re:coke or pepsi

[E IS mC(Square)]

Aha. Apple fanbois in all their glory. Nice to meet you.

more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[OrangeTide]

Apple shut down Digital Research Inc's GEM/1 because of "look and feel" claims. Playing from the same old playbook even though the legal system around software has changed dramatically in the past 25 years.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look and feel... And they're PAID to make key parts for iDevices.

You take Steve's money, he's going to bring down a hammer. Apple worked VERY closely with Samsung to develop touchscreen and flash modules... And paid UP FRONT too. Samsung is obviously not keeping a good "firewall" between their engineers that work on Apple products and the ones that design android phones. First Google makes a phoneOS (which was common knowledge) then Samsung jumps to Andriod phones ... I bet Samsung makes more money from iPhone flash and screens than from selling phones.. They're biting the hand...

But the basics are that Apple paid Samsung for premium access and now Samsung is trying to compete with them. Apple is writing BILLION dollar checks to these guys... Samsung's only bigger customer is Sony.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[just_another_sean]

Didn't they try that crap on Microsoft as well over Windows and lose?

Oh yes, yes they did: Apple v Microsoft

"Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[drb226]

[citation needed]

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[KingMotley]

Apple didn't shut down GEM/1, they made them (re)move the trash icon.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[quickbrownfox]

Didn't they try that crap on Microsoft as well over Windows and lose?

Oh yes, yes they did: Apple v Microsoft

"Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."

This passage is especially relevant:

Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.

With the Samsung litigation, Apple is not trying to claim a patent on an idea or a metaphor, it is claiming that Samsung copied specific design elements. And, as was mentioned upthread, there are multiple ways of expressing these things. To the extent that they are actually original to Apple (I don't claim to have an answer to this), then they might actually be on decent footing here. Apple didn't license any of this to Samsung, as was the case with the Windows litigation.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[Databass]

I wonder just how "similar" they really expect things can be and still be counted as infringement?

"Well, ours is sort of generically tablet-shaped, smooth and pleasing to the touch. Sooo... we're gonna need you to make yours have lots of jagged rusted metal bits on it, to be different."

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And locked the file manager into some goofy 2 pane view.

It's easy to compete when you can ruin your competitor's products.

Compared to other industries

[Anonymous Coward]

BMW's look like Mercedes Benz which look like Porsches, which look like Audis which look like Lexuses, which look like Infinitis, which look like Hyundais, which look like Astons, which look like Fords, which look like Chryslers which look like VWs.

Of course GMs are different, they just look ugly.

Apple: no valid legal argument, just after some extra bucks.

Re:Compared to other industries

[Anonymous Coward]

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200807/2010-chevrolet-camaro-37-1_1600x0w.jpg

Going to go ahead and disagree with you there champ.

And if you think this http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/panamera/ is not ugly, then you're wrong about that too.

Re:Compared to other industries

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't. Your comment is stupid and you are a moron.
  They all look "similar" since they are all cars, but there are easily recognizable
differences and if someone made a car that looked so close.

They aren't suing other android phones that are "similiar" i.e. it has a touch screen
etc. you wouldn't look at a motorola droid and tyhink it's an iphone, or the HTC
ones, but the samsung galxay line is very much like an iphone.

Re:Compared to other industries

[Altus]

One of my neighbors is a porsche dealer and brings one of those home every night. God damn is that an ugly car.

Re:Compared to other industries

[BasilBrush]

BMW's look like Mercedes Benz which look like Porsches, which look like Audis which look like Lexuses, which look like Infinitis, which look like Hyundais, which look like Astons, which look like Fords, which look like Chryslers which look like VWs.

Only to women.

POLICEMAN: What sort of car was he driving?
WOMAN WITNESS: A blue one.

Re:Compared to other industries

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

One of my neighbors is a porsche dealer and brings one of those home every night. God damn is that an ugly car.

It's targeted at the US market - so what do you expect?

Re:Compared to other industries

[intheshelter]

Vision screenings are relatively cheap and can dramatically improve your quality of life. Give it a shot and then look over those cars again.

weak case ?

[anonymous9991]

they must have a weak case, you can not be held liable for unreleased or proof of concept products

Re:weak case ?

[Archangel Michael]

It is for the purposes of issuing an injunction against releasing those products, should they cause problems.

And as for Samsung copying the "design" of the iPhone, the iPhone is rectangular based shape with a screen. And while they look similar, so do Addidias shoes look similar to Nike (same basic shape).

Re:weak case ?

[yarnosh]

Well, maybe I'm mistaken, but the iPhone did seem to define the look and feel of modern smart phones. The idea of ditching the physical keyboard and making the screen the full size of the devices was somewhat revolutionary. That's not to say that anyone should be prevented from implementing that general design because I don't think people can own special rights to that sort of thing, but I think it is appropriate to give Apple some credit for its innovation.

Re:weak case ?

[joh]

It is for the purposes of issuing an injunction against releasing those products, should they cause problems.

And as for Samsung copying the "design" of the iPhone, the iPhone is rectangular based shape with a screen

Still, an icon for your photo gallery doesn't exactly *have* to show yellow flower petals, you know. Samsung copied details here to a depth that makes it more than clear that the phone and the software should look "just like the iPhone".

Personally I think it's just pathetic what Samsung did, even if the lawsuit is somewhat silly. On the other hand Apple has to draw a line somewhere.

When I first handled the Galaxy S I was surprised how obviously and unashamed this thing tried to ape the iPhone. "Rectangular shape with a screen" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Re:weak case ?

[Archangel Michael]

Ape indicates it is a crude imitation. There is no way one can mistake the Samsung for a iPhone, even though they look similar.

Re:weak case ?

[RightSaidFred99]

The iPhone defined it, but it didn't create it.

Re:weak case ?

[yarnosh]

Didn't it still have a slide out keyboard though? I think the big thing with the iPhone was going all touch. But anyway, I've never really been hung up on who came up with ideas first. It certainly isn't worth filing a lawsuit over. Tech should be more like fashion where copying ideas is not just allowed, but expected. Sometimes it stupid how companies are encouraged to do something different just for the sake of being different and not because it is really better.

Re:weak case ?

[BasilBrush]

That certainly looks similar from the front. But only the hardware. The software look and feel is completely different. Whereas Samsung didn't stop with copying the hardware. They went on to copy the look and feel of the app launching software too.

(No actual copying either way with the LG Prada and Apple iPhone. They were revealed only about a month apart.)

Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are to trust Apple? Not a chance.

No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[eldavojohn]

And I am pretty sure it would be hard to put this news in a light that wasn't anti-Apple.

I am one of the most anti-Apple people out there. I own a very old iPod I bought from a friend for $30 and I love the device but I hate the software so I use my own GPL software to access it. I will never buy an Apple product first hand. I will never buy their software and I will never develop for them. But I don't let that get in the way of facts about current news.

I personally feel like all the major phone makers were playing nicely until Apple joined and then someone kicked the patent hornet nest. If I recall correctly, Apple sued Samsung first but Samsung has since retorted with a patent lawsuit against Apple and as far as I'm concerned there are very few innocent players in the mobile phone market these days. It is my opinion that Apple's design (ornamental?) patents or look and feel patents do disgust me more than other functional oriented patents ....

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[shadowrat]

It is my opinion that Apple's design (ornamental?) patents [wikipedia.org] or look and feel patents do disgust me more than other functional oriented patents ....

That's an interesting stance. It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just. After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

So apple patented the design of a home screen consisting of rectangular icons with a 1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width. Why wouldn't I, as a competitor, want to make a product that looked different? Mine will have round icons instead. problem solved. Yeah, some people just want to make a knockoff product that looks like an iphone. Design patents make that hard. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. As a consumer i'd kind of like a choice in how my phone looks.

It's the fact that someone can patent an algorithm, like displaying a full screen launch image prior to loading the application to give the system a feeling of responsiveness, that i find egregious.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Wyatt Earp]

Don't let reality get in the way of your Apple hate.

http://www.economist.com/node/17309237

"Since 2006 the number of mobile-phone-related patent complaints has increased by 20% annually, according to Lex Machina, a firm that keeps a database of intellectual-property spats in America."

The first iPhone was unveiled by Apple CEO Steve Jobs on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007.

So the mobile patent wars started before Apple showed up, Apple just added another litigation happy company with a ton of patents and money to the mix.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine will have round icons instead.

And if someone has already patented round icons with a prior design patent? What if both square and round icons are patented ... do you go to triangular? Are you forced to pick a shape that has yet to be patented and patent it yourself before someone else does? Enjoy your icosahedral icons.

What you are talking about should be copyright, not patent. And it should be the entire look and feel, not broken down to components like they always are (and are the basis for a lot of these suits as tiny pieces are scrutinized against claims in the many design patents).

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if you look at the graph he included, it's pretty obvious that Apple is one of the big litigators. Nowhere did he say Apple started it.

And what sort of fucked up logic "proves" that Apple had nothing to do with the explosion of patents given your "reality" or "fact" or whatever you want to call it? How does that logically follow?

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

And how many of those are good interface designs?

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. It's a rectangle with rounded corners, the corners can only be within set limits to keep the container the right size. People have been doing rounded corners since the 80s, I know I did on Amiga development, and there was no way this wasn't done before on other systems. Icons need to convey information, there's only so much you can do with geometry before they look complete shite.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Here's the problem in 1 sentence from a Samsung Galaxy S review : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS." There's a fine line between using similar desing elements and making something so similar it's mistaken for something else. Should it be illegal ? Probably not, but you can sort of see why Apple is pissed off.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

the biggest problem that I have with this, is that -every- phone I have had in the last 6 or so years, essentially has had square, 1*1 icons on the screen. The only difference between my RAZR or my Nokia 6682 and my Nexus is that I touch the icons, instead of navigating them using the d-pad.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[geekoid]

Yes, but it was a nest that needed kicking.

I mean the state of phones was stagnant.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Solandri]

That's an interesting stance. It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just. After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

So apple patented the design of a home screen consisting of rectangular icons with a 1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width. Why wouldn't I, as a competitor, want to make a product that looked different? Mine will have round icons instead. problem solved. Yeah, some people just want to make a knockoff product that looks like an iphone. Design patents make that hard. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

The courts decided to exempt clothing design from copyright protection precisely because of the reason you cite (1:58 into the talk). They didn't want someone owning the idea of using a button in a certain place, or having a cuff on your sleeve.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[DaveV1.0]

I guess you have forgotten how Motorola sued Nokia over "flip phones" and won. Why do you think one could not get a Nokia flip phone for so long? It was part of the settlement.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since 2006 the number of mobile-phone-related patent complaints has increased by 20% annually, according to Lex Machina, a firm that keeps a database of intellectual-property spats in America."

The first iPhone was unveiled by Apple CEO Steve Jobs on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007.

So the mobile patent wars started before Apple showed up, Apple just added another litigation happy company with a ton of patents and money to the mix.

If Apple showed their first iPhone in January 2007 they were obviously working on it in 2006 and thus had showed up. (Unless Jony Ivy only needed 9 days to spec design and come up with a working example.)

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had one or two people walk up to me saying my Nexus One was a wannabe i-device, so I guess everything looks like one of their devices.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

But I wonder how much of this is form follows function, that in order to be competitive with the features of the latest generation iPhone, that it is necessary to implement much of the iPhone's design features.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[Altus]

if they said it was a wannabe then they were clearly able to differentiate it, on sight, from an iPhone with little to no difficulty.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[mjwx]

It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just.

How?

1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width.

You cannot patent mathematical equation because of their obviousness.

Put simply, what you've stated can be discovered by anyone who is following the same path as Apple did without ever seeing an iDevice or even knowing of it's existence. You should not be able patent things that obvious.

Designs cant be patented, designs like logo's can be trademarked or even copyrighted. Blueprints can be patented.

Have you actually read what Apple is suing over? One of the things Apple is suing Samsung over is rounded corners, that's right, Apple is trying to claim exclusivity on rounded corners.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[shadowrat]

I'm not trying to say that apple is in the right here. I didn't even say i was for design patents. I may have made a bad choice of words as i hadn't properly identified that "more just" didn't move them across the spectrum to awesome patents. I just meant less offensive than a software patent. the gp proclaimed design patents to be the worst of all. I wondered why.

Designs cant be patented, designs like logo's can be trademarked or even copyrighted. Blueprints can be patented

You say a blueprint can be patented. What is a blueprint if not relative measurements? If a design can be expressed as such, it seems closer to something patentable than a patent for functionality. There is still the concept that something must be novel to be patented, and I'm sure we're in agreement that rounded corners are not.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[aXis100]

I'm not an Apple fan at all, but if you've seen/used a Samsung android phone and an iPhone you'd agree there are many more infringements than just accidentally arriving at the same common sense UI.

I have a HTC android and have been very happy with it, but when I used a friends Samsung android phone the experience was completely different. Samsung have gone out of their way to modify their Android verisons, and several apps and UI elements are obvious clones of Apple iPhone. It's just blatant and unneccesary, Android already has it's own good features and selling points.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[digitalchinky]

I've had people say the same thing in regard to my N900 while I've had the slide out keyboard open - How many other people on the planet have an N900, let alone know what its capabilities are? 30 people or so? :-) The other common question: Is that a new iPhone? (also while the keyboard is out)

I don't think the Galaxy S looks much like an iPhone myself, one look at the display and you know it's running Android as well.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts

[thebigbadme]

just to clarify:

Apple is trying to have a monopoly on cutting corners?

Alright, if they really want to be the only company to make shite product.

Weak, weak, weak.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Edible Apple" article first of all- it implies that APPLE personnel are going to look at the devices. Wrong, according to the source quoted on Edible Apple itself. So Edible Apple seems to be counting on Apple users to NOT do more than a cursory read before making incorrect assumptions.

Second of all- the entire case.

Imagine this: Back in the early days-
TV manufacturer 1: "Ok, I am suing because I sell a tv in a box-shaped cabinet with a tube to display pictures with a knob for volume and another to change (tune) channels. Manufacturer #2 is trying to sell a device with the same feature set and WE are the ones who developed it. People will be confused about who makes these televisions if they are similar in this fashion."

Or car manufacturers:
Car company 1: "Judge, we have been selling a car with 4 rubber tired wheels, a gas powered engine and steering via a wheel in the front of the passenger cabin for 2 months. This new company is now trying to do the same thing! We have no problem if they use 5 wheels, levers to steer and do not place the engine in the front of the vehicle, but we have patents pending on our design of car and nobody else can use it unless the pay us a license fee."

This has really gotten ridiculous and the US legal system allowing it is yet more proof of how flawed it has become.

Did you read the contract?

[tanujt]

Didn't the Samsung CTO read the iTunes contract before signing it on his iPad? It clearly says there that you agree to be sued for plagiarizing our devices if you are a device manufacturing company.

I hate samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Their Omnia cell phones came with WM 6.1 they would never release WM 6.5 for the Omnia when it came out. Only for the Omnia 2 would they do so. Which was a new model at the time so you would have to buy a new phone.

I have an old smart phone and I simply want to make phone calls with perhaps a limited range of options but I don't care.

Meanwhile in S Korea they give all their custoners free updates ad infinitum. They are NOT generous. They SUCK. I hate them more than APPLE !!!! From my research HTC is the company for cell phones.

Slashdot web design really really sucks. I wish there was a competitor.

Apple Tactics

[tzine3]

Apple tried that with Palm over a demo. These tactics go back to 1984 over Digital's GEM OS. Samsung should subpena the iphone 5 designs from one of Apple's iSweatshops to ensure the reverse is not true as well.

Why look-and-feel patents suck

[StripedCow]

Look-and-feel patents suck, and there's a very simple argument for that: users like to have similar interfaces for similar functions.

In case you don't agree: imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[MacGyver2210]

Is that a new derivative of the QWERTY keyboard? They can patent that if they like - I don't see many people adopting it.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[LoganDzwon]

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/qwerty.htm

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[chuckugly]

imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

Or the automotive steering wheel/gas/brake/clutch layout.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

what is a querty keyboard? I bet if someone patented that no one would care (and I'm sure that the patent would be granted ;).

by the by, the qwerty keyboard was patented, in 1868.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltypewriter.htm

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Look-and-feel patents suck, and there's a very simple argument for that: users like to have similar interfaces for similar functions.

In case you don't agree: imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

"QWERTY" keyboard 207,559 (US) issued August 27, 1878 by Latham Sholes

http://www.google.com/patents?id=8F1HAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

It amazes me that you *typed* "querty" out. I sure damn hope you use dvorak.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

They did.

Patent: 207,559 (US) issued August 27, 1878

it expired long before the PC came around.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck

[BasilBrush]

In case you don't agree: imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

They did. In 1878. It will have run out 17 years later. In 1895.

What was your argument again?

In Apple's Defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple of course claims that Samsung's products blatantly copy the look and feel of Apple's iOS devices.

In Apple's defense, they're only claiming this because it's true.

Re:In Apple's Defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

As does any smart phone or tablet that is a rounded rectangle with a large touchscreen if that logic is accepted.

Which means that any smart phone or tablet design that does NOT have a physical keyboard on the front of the device should be licensed from Apple???

Let's see... maybe I should patent a claw hammer so that nobody else can make a hammer with claws to pull nails without paying me a license fee.

This is another example of ridiculously frivolous lawsuits trying to prevent competition and they REALLY need to stop.

Re:In Apple's Defense...

[walterbyrd]

What should a "tablet" look like? A tire iron?

I can easilly tell the difference between a galaxy, and an ipad, with my eyes closed.

Perhaps Samung Should countersue...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gsmarena.com is a great source for info on old models of phones. As it turns out the iPhone 3G was introduced in June of 2008. As I look back through the GSM Arena archives I see that in January of 2008 Samsung released this: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f490-2203.php
In Feburary of 2007 Samsung introduced this: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f490-2203.php

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

So its a colored wallpaper with icons? I believe that has been done since the early 80s. I didn't think you could patent look and feel anyway outside of art or graphic design. Unless Samsung uses the same code, icons, or exact same hardware specs...which is pushing it...I don't see this being a winnable law suit.

Re:WTF

[intheshelter]

"colored paper with icons". . . .

Just a guess, but was it your keen analytical skills which enabled your meteoric career rise to Head Lettuce Washer at McDonalds?

The real problem is not that Samsung copied

[kaizendojo]

as much as that they did a better job of it. The Galaxy Tab is simply better than the iPad2. IMHO is afraid of losing market share and this time, rather than innovate, they decided to litigate.

Re:The real problem is not that Samsung copied

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Fucking retard

Re:The real problem is not that Samsung copied

[Lifyre]

I'm not arguing with their logic but having dealt with both of the products you mentioned I can't say I agree that the Galaxy Tab is better in pretty much any way. At best the new 10.1 inch tablet puts them on even footing except that Honeycomb wasn't really ready for prime time last I checked and Samsung isn't exactly a shining star of after the sale support, especially in the software arena where they have been historically very poor with their phones. If Samsung can put the same level of service into their software updates that Apple does then there will be a real competition here and the benefits of Android will really shine through, especially at with the lower price point.

Disclaimer: I do not own any Apple products and run Gingerbread on my phone.

They're not the first rounded corners

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Apple didn't invent the rounded corner, and their products use styling cues copied from other companies.

Really unless there is confusion in the customers mind because of the rounded corners, then design patents should not be there, they should be trademarks.

If its not distinct enough to be trademarked then its not right to give Apple an exclusive on something it based on other peoples work.

Apple makes high priced junk.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Apple ran out of ideas, and they're taking the competition to court because they're better.

Apple makes overpriced products that are crippled by design.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so this is the future without Jobs. Being a juggernauth patent troll.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot! Sorry to say this, but the iPhone was revolutionary. Everyone is still imitating Apple with regards to phones.
Before the iPhone, the smartest phone was the N95. It was an usability nightmare on a crappy OS with reasonably potent hardware but a bad case design.
The only one that seems to try to innovate in mobile device usability is Microsoft. Unfortunately for them it might just be too little too late, which is quite unfortunate since they came up with the modern smart-phone concept. Palm and Blackberry didn't understand that a lot of users don't need a keyboard. Microsoft did, but they didn't figure out the stylus-less UI part. Microsoft even created the tablets, but Apple finally came up with a decent one.
Unfortunately, there will always be idiots that bitch over tablet or smartphone being more than just a different form factor laptop. If you don't confuse a computer with a table or smart-phone your expectations will be inline with reality and the devices will meet and exceed expectations. If you are an idiot and want a laptop in a smartphone form-factor, you always have the Nokia MeeGo/Maemo devices. You can run any desktop application on it, if it fits the resolution (and it won't) and if you have surgeon precision hands with the stylus.
Regarding the other hardware, the Laptops and Desktops, may be others will be faster but unless you play games, you might not need that. However, I still haven't seen any PC laptops with the same quality build, battery life. And regarding the overpriced part, don't bitch if you can't afford them. Most engineers I know, love their Macs regardless of what OS they run on them. I honestly am sick of idiots that keep bitching about Apple. You don't like it, don't buy it!
I haven't seen any trolls complaining about HP, IBM, Dell, Sony, Acer, Asus or other brands. And those brands really make crappy plastic "laptops".

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[BasilBrush]

Jackie Chan is a cheap Bruce Lee copy.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Anonymous Coward (Wednesday May 25, @02:45PM)

I see Apple fanbois are astroturfing on Slashdot.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[intheshelter]

Actually I saw someone who knew what they were talking about. A trait that jackie did not appear to have.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Not really. Read his history. He was raised to act, sing, and dance through very abusive techniques now deemed child abuse in China today. Jackie was acting long before Bruce.

BUT, you're right. There was a time when EVERY chinese male actor copied Bruce Lee, because that is what the market wanted.

Fortunate for Jackie, he only did that in 1 film. That was in a sequel to Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury. Jackie had been a stunt double on Bruces films and thanks to his elder "brother" Sammo Hung having been a stunt coordinator in HK film.

Sammo went on to make film history, along with Jackie, and Yuen Biao, as well as Yuen wa, Yuen Woo Ping and Corey Yuen. You may have heard of them... if not, you know nothing of HK cinema. These folks defined HK film for years long after Bruce Lee's drug overdose.... Because they were true artists in film making.

Bruce couldnt act at all, nor could he choreograph a fight scene on the level of any of those above I've mentioned. It is simply undeniably fact, and its all on record... film.

Re:Apple makes high priced junk.

[BasilBrush]

BUT, you're right. There was a time when EVERY chinese male actor copied Bruce Lee, because that is what the market wanted.

Just as now is a time when every smartphone manufacturer copies the iPhone because that is what the market wants. Apple have sued Samsung in the first place because amongst the top-tier manufacturers, theirs is the most blatant copy.

Apple is just lucky....

[SwedishChef]

that Xerox PARC didn't sue them for copying look-and-feel, the mouse, and ethernet.

Re:Apple is just lucky....

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The reason, Xerox was an Apple investor, it'd be like suing yourself

  “Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called “Apple,” the Xerox PARC commandos were forced — under protest — to give Apple’s engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows.
[...]
The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple’s success)."

Re:Apple is just lucky....

[robus]

Seriously? Even here on Slashdot where we know how to use the inter-tubes?

"The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge ruled "that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons," although it is commonly believed that Xerox simply waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. This was not actually true; the dismissal of Xerox's legal complaint was not based simply on late filings, but rather a lack of legal merit to Xerox's case as it was presented."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

Jeez - is Google search so hard? There's no excuse for uninformed opinion and urban legends any more. It just shows a pathetic amount of laziness...

Re:Apple is just lucky....

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, if you look at the Xerox Star Desktop and the original Macintosh Desktop, they don't look much alike. No menu bar, window borders look a lot different, scrollbars look different, etc.

Re:Apple is just lucky....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

that Xerox PARC didn't sue them for copying look-and-feel, the mouse, and ethernet.

Actually, they didn't invent the mouse, and pushed Ethernet as an open standard - but they did sue because of look-and-feel and the case was dismissed.

Not even close

[walterbyrd]

A Galaxy and an iPad look nothing alike. Anybody can tell the difference with their eyes closed.

http://www.techchee.com/2010/06/04/samsung-galaxy-tab-tablet/

Re:Not even close

[shutdown -p now]

You're confusing Galaxy Tab (the tablet) with Galaxy S (the phone). I have no idea how Galaxy Tab looks and whether it is similar to iPad. I was comparing Galaxy S2 to iPhone.

Galaxy S mistaken for an iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS."

My mother once pointed at my DVR and asked "Is that a VHS Player?" .... Can the VHS Player makers claim that my mother's remark shows that DVR makers are ripping off the look of a VHS player ...

Surely the weight given to a "mistaking for" claim depends on the knowledge/experience/ability of the claimer..

I know people, including geeks, who mistake MS Windows for a secure operating system...

Re:KOREA !! CHINA JUNIOR !! SO YES OF COURSE COPYI

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that your syntax and misspellings imply that you yourself are asian in origin. But in any case seems like a good business model to me
#troll

Generic.

[w0mprat]

Apples designs are so pared down, minimal, featureless that the patent reads more like a generic description of a form factor, not of a distinct and novel device.

Actually they do

[SuperKendall]

Not to throw cold water on the joke too much but in fact Samsung phones have the same issue.

Hate Apple or Design Patents?

[sjbe]

I am one of the most anti-Apple people out there.

I'm mostly indifferent towards Apple but I appreciate you stating your biases up front.

I personally feel like all the major phone makers were playing nicely until Apple joined...

That's sort of a problem don't you think? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with them not competing with each other including in the court room.

It is my opinion that Apple's design (ornamental?) patents or look and feel patents do disgust me more than other functional oriented patents ....

OK, I'll bite. Why? A patent is a patent regardless of who holds the rights to it. Lots of companies hold design patents besides Apple. Is this an argument against Apple or against design patents? There certainly are many problems with the patent system but saying Apple's patents disgust you more than others seems to be letting your biases get ahead of your "facts".

Meh..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Galaxy Tab experience is like a cheap Chinese knockoff of an iPad. Android stacks up to iOS about like Linux stacks up to OSX. Sure, the linuxes are great fun for people that like to hack at the device, but they absolutely suck for anyone that just wants to USE the device.

Re:KOREA !! CHINA JUNIOR !! SO YES OF COURSE COPYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyiest? Wtf? 75BCD15

Stop splitting subject and verb!

[gottabeme]

"Last Wednesday, Samsung was ordered..."
or
"Samsung was ordered last Wednesday"

NOT "Samsung last Wednesday was ordered..."! Yeesh! Wednesday was not ordered! Quit butchering grammar!

Mod parent up, this is about design, not tech

[rjmnz]

If you make soda that tastes like Coca-Cola, you don't have any issues. There are many generics today. If you make your cans and bottles look like Coca-Cola or Pepsi ones with similar color, logos, fonts, etc; you are going to get your ass sued. That's the distinction Apple is making and why they didn't sue LG or Motorola or Nokia or RIM for copying design.

In particular the shape of the Coke Bottle is zealously defended. It is instantly recognizable anywhere in the world, with or without label. Any copycat designs are relentlessly pursued worldwide.
The only asset CocaCola has is their "Trade Dress". This is what protects their brand identity.

lawsuits vs innovation

[GeodesicGnome]

I remember a time Apple seemed like it was trying to make money by lawsuits rather than coming up with cool new products. The Sculley days? Are they back to that?

Lobby congress

[Married to Christ]

Why doesn't Apple just lobby congress to make it illegal to compete with Apple? Would make the law a lot clearer for judges like this.

lets give samsung a war chest

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone that loves android (and samsung producs) should buy a device from them , build them a little war chest and bury apple , freaking patent trolls , i officially boyycott apple pie

Oh put a sock in it apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah cause Apples chinese manufactured arm chips with infinion basebands, a display, an antenna and a battery do show similarities to Samsungs chinese manufactured arm chips with infinion basebands a display, an antenna and a battery .

What does it "look and feel" like? Like a frigging touch screen phone, thats what it "looks and feels" like!

What sets the iPhone apart is the software, quite a bit of which Apple didn`t exactly develop itself and very little was designed and written this decade. The "app store"? The jailbreakers had to drag apple kicking and screaming into allowing that. I also couldn`t help but notice the Japanese touch screen firm got a copyright credit as did some German font rendering people. Touch screens, fonts you know "look and feel" stuff.

Someone needs to remind apple that there is more to innovation than having a committee of marketing people design some icons and slapping a high enough price on it to make it exclusive. The iPhone is rapidly approaching its fourth birthday (And its looks have not changed a bit), so besides all the boring, over the top, textbook aspirational marketing what has apple contributed to the phone market lately?

Apple is approaching the point where it has the vision of a bunch of lawyers and marketeers, cause well, thats all thats left.

Apple vs Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

To a certain extent it is an internal conflict: an Apple owned company provides the processors for Samsung tablets, Apple is a massive investor in Samsung which in turn produces a fair number of Apple parts including screen. Beyond theses facts we can stretch our imagination just a little and imagine a provider who would somehow put restrictions on the processor that they provide...Oh no sorry , I stand corrected. We all know that Apple would never do that ;-)