Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Ordered To Hand Over Unreleased Designs To Apple

Posted by Unknown on from the we-totally-didn't-copy-your-design dept.

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."

34 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Except That Is Completely Incorrect by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Who needs information when you have presumption?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by milkmage · · Score: 2

      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

    5. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by milkmage · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Funny

      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...

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    7. Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect by umghhh · · Score: 2

      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?

  2. no surprise by rhodes187 · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:no surprise by RazzleFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:no surprise by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Sounds lucrative to me...

    3. Re:no surprise by kimvette · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:no surprise by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:no surprise by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:no surprise by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  3. I have lots of Samsung Phones by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones by Bassman59 · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Trying to Compete is a Crime? by ThinkWeak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. more of this look and feel bullshit again? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    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
  6. Re:How can they? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

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

  7. No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts by eldavojohn · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts by shadowrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      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.

  8. Re:weak case ? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    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).

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. Re:weak case ? by joh · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:coke or pepsi by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Apple is just lucky.... by SwedishChef · · Score: 2

    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!
    1. Re:Apple is just lucky.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      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)."

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:Apple is just lucky.... by robus · · Score: 2

      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...

  12. Re:coke or pepsi by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

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