Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
My work here is dung.
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).
I GNU you'd like Linux
And none of them have antenna/reception issues, so where is the copying taking place?
When they haven't seen the iphone 5 to copy it yet?
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?
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.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
they must have a weak case, you can not be held liable for unreleased or proof of concept products
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
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
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.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
that Xerox PARC didn't sue them for copying look-and-feel, the mouse, and ethernet.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
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/
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.
"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...
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.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Not to throw cold water on the joke too much but in fact Samsung phones have the same issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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".
"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!
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
One of my neighbors is a porsche dealer and brings one of those home every night. God damn is that an ugly car.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
Jackie Chan is a cheap Bruce Lee copy.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Fandroids hate facts.
Vision screenings are relatively cheap and can dramatically improve your quality of life. Give it a shot and then look over those cars again.
"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?
Actually I saw someone who knew what they were talking about. A trait that jackie did not appear to have.
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.
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.