Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Lawyer Fails To Differentiate iPad and Galaxy Tab In Court
Several readers sent in a story that's sure to be embarrassing for Samsung. The company has been involved in a drawn-out patent dispute with Apple over similarities between the Galaxy Tab and the iPad. Today, during a court session, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh held up both objects and asked one of Samsung's attorneys whether she could identify which was which. The attorney replied, "Not at this distance, your honor." The distance was roughly 10 feet. The judge then quizzed the rest of Samsung's lawyers. After a brief hesitation, one of them was able to correctly identify the Galaxy Tab.
Two rectangular slabs are supposed to be perfectly distinguishable at 10 feet? Perhaps Apple wants Samsung to make round tablets. How bout trapezoidal? I'm sure that's not patented...
Black slate of plastic with rounded corneers, like every other tablet on the market. Its like trying to identify between name brand and generic cereal by looking at a bowlfull.
No matter how you feel about patents, Apple, or Samsung, this is funny.
How about turning them on? The one that works is a Samsung.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
...That's the real story here.
Myself, I can't tell the difference between an iPad and a windows 98 tablet computer at ten feet.
And at fifty feet, you could be holding an etch-a-sketch for all I know. I mean seriously, how much detail do you want me to discern from a nearly featureless slab of plastic?
I can't tell the difference between a Honda and a Toyota 9 times out of 10, and I drive a Honda. If my GF didn't have a sun roof, and there was no hood ornament, I'd have absolutely no way of distinguishing her silver Corolla from the neighbors silver Civic. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
That you need new glasses? :-)
This whole Apple V samsung debate really bothers me. Everyone here knows we need (proper) patent reform across the board. I hate trivial patents, patent trolling, and software patents....but there's just something about Apple being able to keep samsung from selling tablets because their tablet is, *gasp* a rectangular touch screen. Why aren't LCD monitor companies fighting each other in court? Many monitors look the same with trivial differences. All these tablets are are screens with a little computer on the back. I mean jesus christ, what a fucking waste of time and effort.
As others have pointed out, that's a terrible test. I can't tell apart a pair of toasters or TVs or refrigerators unless the brand logo is visible. That doesn't mean they're all infringing, it just means that form follows function. But this judge wanted a bad ass moment like what you'd see on Law and Order.
Apple has patents covering their design. This is what the judge is saying. The Galaxy clearly violates Apple's patents, but Apple still needs to prove that their patents are valid (Samsung claimed several instances of prior art, Apple has to show that those cases would not violate their patent).
I'm sure that they are easily distinguishable from the back.
Also, they are distinguishable where they are sold: Apple Store or !Apple Store.
And no doubt distinguishable by price.
But most of all, they are distinguishable by the operating system they run. You either want to be in the Apple ecosystem (aka Walled Garden) or you don't. And you should be able to buy the tablet of your preference based on this fact. This whole lawsuit is as anti-consumer as it gets because Samsung isn't producing iPads. While they may still be producing the CPU of the iPad, the Samsung product is not an iPad and can't replace an iPad because it doesn't run Apple iPad software. So Apple is trying to kill a product that doesn't directly compete with the iPad because if you want an iPad than no substitute will do.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
For something to be funny, it has to be based in truth... an Android tablet having run out of power rings far more true than the iPad having failed for some reason.
But part of the point of the lawsuits is that even on, most would be hard pressed to tell them apart...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real here deal is that Apple's design patents are completely bogus.
Really? This car and this car don't look pretty much identical at first glance? Sure, there are couple things you can pick out when you look at them side by side, but you'd have to specifically memorize the distinguishing features in order to tell them apart. That's pretty much the case with the Apple and Samsung products too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In the case of the iPad, one of the primary uses is to impress people from across the room.
So, yes, 10 feet is the usual using distance.
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-2-Interface-Icons.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html
Apple's "design patent" is not about any single property (like the famous "rounded rectangle") but about the combination of all of these.
Find any two white refrigerators of the same size. Remove their logos. Tell them apart at 10 feet away.
Are you one of the lawyers for Apple by chance?
:(){
Samsung Galaxy: http://bub.blicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab.jpg
Apple iPad: http://areacellphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/best_ipad_texting_app.jpg
(1) The two have different width to height ratios.
(2) The Apple iPad has a single concave button in the middle of one of its bezel sides.
(3) The UI is noticeably different
(4) The Samsung Galaxy looks to have a user-facing camera.
Maybe they should have asked a prospective buyer. You know? The people the matter...
It's not surprising that 95% of the posts here boil down to iFans arguing with Android zealots - but I think they're missing the key point.
You'd think a Samsung lawyer would be well-versed enough in the fundamental differences between the two products (such as the aspect ratio) so as not to get tripped up by this question. People here made fun of an earlier Photoshop job, apparently put forth by an European Apple lawyer, where they'd changed the ratio on an image of the Galaxy Tab so it matched that of the iPad. Since it's come up before - why couldn't the lawyer tell the difference between the two when they were side by side?
#DeleteChrome
In the case of the iPad, one of the primary uses is to impress people from across the room^h^h^h^h independent, organic free-trade coffee shop.
So, yes, 10 feet is the usual using distance.
Yeah, but in those cases the other people usually see the side or back of the device, which are clearly different on the Samsung and Apple products. So this "tell the fronts apart from 10 feet" is clearly bogus.
The designs of most older refrigerators have a lot of similarities. The freezer was almost always on top. They almost always opened from the same side. They're typically the same size, with shelves and railings inside. Their user interface (the thermostats) were often numbered from 1-10. In fact, apart from the logo, it's usually quite difficult to tell refrigerators apart.
:(){
That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard-- MOST creative people do it for the joy of having creating. A minority of them are in it only for the money.
And today that is what we have. A bunch of people who are only in it for the money (many of them creative enough only to purchase patents) suing people who are creative and who likely just though whatever the heck it was is so obvious that it didn't cross their minds that it should be patentable.
The 0.3MP FaceTime camera of the iPad 2 was copied from the iPhone 4 and the 4th Generation iPod Touch.
The 1.3MP Front-facing camera of the Galaxy Tab is a completely different camera. It has more Megapixels and fewer lenses.
Riiiight.... I'm not gonna argue os here, just hardware.
So, let's back up a bit here. What did 'smartphones' look like before the iPhone? Various screen sizes, clunky thinkness/form factor and a alpha numeric keyboard of some sort. We all know history, iPhone comes along, all touch based and it sets the precedent for things to come. Apple invented that. No one else did, especially not Samsung.
Then the iPod Touch follows about 8 months after. Note around this time, if you search everywhere on the web, for Samsung's tablets or anyone else's (like Archos, etc) all look like something between a Sony PSP and a Nokia 770. Yes, all rectangle, but just not the Apple glass touchscreen with a black bezel and metal band around the edge.
Now, few years later, Apple extrapolates out the form of *their* invention for a natural progression, the iPad. Somewhere in between all this, patents are filed for how the device looks and functions. Note: form + function == *design*! Apple purposefully designed their device. Their physical thing. They didn't copy a HP TabletPC or Sony Ericsson or Nokia. They made their own design and they popularized it and people loved it. Go back to 2010 and look at the Samsung Vibrant. Glass front, no keyboard, black bezel, chrome border. Hmm, I've seen that before somewhere in 2007.. Galaxy Tab, same thing.
Now, let's look at the packaging of a Galaxy Tab. White box, picture of device on it. Gee, where have I seen that? Open it up, same unpacking experience as the iPad/iPhone - device up front, other stuff underneath. Btw, Apple patented their packaging - all the way back in 2007! And speaking of packaging, even Samsung's USB charger adapters look like Apple's, except, get ready for it - they're black and not white. Looking at the USB cable, same. Black not white, but same connectors on both ends.
If you want more evidence of rip off, search around the web a few weeks ago for the picture of the Samsung store. Look hard - pictures of Apple's app store and Safari icons on the wall. That's pretty blatant - even Microsoft doesn't do that (altho they did have a lot of pc ads with Mac laptops, but anyway). After all this, in my mind, it's pretty clear that Samsung would rather copy, on multiple levels, one of the most successful brands out there instead of paving their own way. Plain and simple. They're also damaging the Android ecosphere with all this crap. Android needs to have devices for it that push the envelope, not copy designs years old.
This whole Samsung copying thing goes way deeper than just the 'rectangular touch screen'. It crosses multiple products and up to physical storefront. It is undeniable that it's rip off. Plain and simple. Patents do need to be reformed, but this is not an example of it in my mind as it has nothing to do with software, where the real ridiculous shit is goin on.
I was thinking more along the lines of Google Image Search for white refrigerator.
http://www.google.com/search?q=white+refrigerator&tbm=isch
The images are small enough that you can't see their logos. So how many of those can you tell apart? Can you tell me which ones are manufactured by Westinghouse, just by their visual appearance?
:(){
"Apple's senior barrister Stephen Burley asked Justice Annabelle Bennett to prevent Samsung from selling any "tablet device" during the injunction period."
Taken from:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-14/samsung-free-to-launch-another-tablet/3572318
To sum up the Judge told them to piss off and be happy with the injunction as it is until the real case comes up.
The law is not there to merely be a business tool to stifle competition. There was a tablet market before Apple even if it was a small one, and keeping others out unconditionally is unfair.
It's a pity Australia can't reverse the incredibly fucking stupid US patent laws we adopted as part of the "free trade" agreement - that one where for instance the USA can export beef or products containing beef to Australia but it's forbidden the other way (same with sugar, steel, wheat and a few other protected industries).
I'd like permission to treat my counsel as a hostile witness...
I, too, agree that Samsung (and others) are copying Apple in some ways more than others.
The questions are...
1. Is that a bad thing?
For the end-users, I would say it isn't.
For Apple, I would say it isn't either. Nobody's going to walk around with Device X that may look like e.g. an iPhone and claim it's an iPhone - that would just make them posers.
Without the claim, if you were to see such a Device X and think "ooh! iPhone sure seems popular!", I can't see how that would hurt Apple either, except from the anti-popular-things crowd.
No store is going to put the Device X in their shop and then try to suggest it's an iPhone either.
The people who buy a Device X, in short, buy it not because it's "just like an iPhone", but in part because it's [i]not[/i] an iPhone.. either in design details or in operating system or.. etc. Whatever the reason, it was reason enough not to just get the iPhone.
Now it may be a matter of principle, and that's all fine and dandy and they're in their right to defend that principle.
But if Apple are essentially just saying "you can't make a device that copies ours because with those copied elements your device is better than ours - please stick to crappy design elements so that our device is the only one the majority of people could reasonably want, thanks"... well, that's just sad.
2. At what point does the copying become something different?
What I mean by that is this... you already point out that obviously it's not [i]just[/i] about having a rectangle with rounded corners, it's the complete package.
But presumably just doing a single thing different wouldn't break enough from that 'complete package' to get the case dropped.
I.e. if they dropped the 'the color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the screen' and instead went with a bluish one, I'm going to guess that would not get them off the hook. I'm going to guess that if it was actually a shape with two curved edges going across the screen that it would also not be enough. Maybe the combination of curved shape + blue would be enough... but only for that single point. It would leave all the others.
The problem with 'all the others' is that they're pretty generic.
( Mind you, even that rectangle is pretty generic if they're literally referring to the screen itself. Making the screen 'blue' would mean nothing less than tinting the LCD thus giving everything a bluish cast. Really now? I was half hoping they meant the grey rectangle used for the bottom set of icons, which could indeed be designed in a billion ways not 'copying' Apple.. but they specifically list that separately and as being 'silver' so perhaps the "[the screen]" is indeed meant literally. )
Yes, the older comparison model shows a completely different design direction that doesn't appear to copy most of the points made. But it still copies 4 of the 15 points. Is [i]that[/i] enough, then?
Let's assume, just for kicks, 'yes' here. Now let's add one thing back in - colored icons. The black/white design is nice for those who like it, but most people are going to want colored icons these days. Putting aside the 'icon design' issues, the device would now find itself 'copying' the fact that it may use 'black, blue, brown, brown-gray (and a host of other colors) as part of its design. It would also make it vastly more appealing to the masses. So would it now be a target of litigation again?
If so, that would mean that a whole range of devices would be fair game.
E.g. the Dell Aero:
http://cdn.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/articleimage/Jerry%20Hildenbrand/2010/05/Dell-Aero.jpg