Samsung Vs. Apple Tit-For-Tat Down Under

New submitter GumphMaster writes "In the latest edition of the Apple vs. Samsung patent fight, the ABC is reporting that Samsung has filed in Australian and Japanese courts seeking an injunction to halt sales of the iPhone 4S for alleged 3G patent violations. It remains to be seen whether Samsung has any better luck with the retaliatory strike in Australian and Japanese courts than it did with courts in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, I expect that Samsung will fail partly because of overseas precedent, but mostly because their patents are sane, technical and narrow in scope (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition). If this stupidity ever stops, then millions of dollars, euro, or Won that are being spent on lawyers might actually go into the innovation that patents are meant to promote. Who knows where that might lead?"

Comments

Well, it depends

[dev897]

At least Apple didn't try to patent wireless data transfer.... Samsung has a patent (of course invalid) that covers pretty much all radio communications.... There is not good or bad, they all are bad, and lawyers win as usual....

Re:Well, it depends

[Kartu]

"At least they didn't try"? Are you serious? How much money does Apple spend on such R&D please? How much Samsung, owning core 3G patents (and that worldwide, not US where you can patent basic ideas) and what not spends on it?

Apple "develops" in-house brilliant "design patents" like rectangle with rounded corners. Apple BOUGHT company that had multi-touch patent. Apple BOUGHT company that has developed Siri (former appstore app, now withdrawn)
Samsung spends money on real R&D.

Re:A clean uncluttered rectangle wasn't that obvio

[sensationull]

> Except nobody bar a few design students with incredible vision (but without the support of large companies) knew it at all. If it was obvious then early 1990s tablet PCs would have soon had the same design.

Oh you mean like the PADDs in STNG or the ones in all sorts of other SciFi since the 80s. They are the ones with the vision, the SciFi writers, producers and set designers. Apple just managed implementation.

So I guess we've picked a side then

[ZackSchil]

I'm so glad to see Slashdot his picked a side in this patent battle. I guess we'll just safely assume that Samsung only tried to submarine the entire 3G standard in retaliation of Apple's legal moves and would have never pulled that shit with less than noble intentions. I guess whenever Apple gets mad because one of their biggest business partners is aping their design cues and ripping off their trade dress, that they are trying to patent rectangles and smother innovation.

Got it.

Illiterate troll?

[mveloso]

Maybe if you actually read the patent and had some imagination you'd realize that there are different ways of doing things.

Apple's design process: let's do lots of research as to what works and doesn't, both in software and hardware.
Samsung's design process: let's copy Apple's.

Can Samsung's UX team point out exactly how they designed all of Samsung's hardware and software? Why do their icons look that way? Why have the sheen/gloss instead of a flat look? Why not make the icons circular vignettes instead of rounded squares? Why taper the back of your device just so?

They can't, because their work is basically Apple's work.

Samsung's UX and R&D team are sitting in Cupertino inside 1 Infinite Loop. Their secondary teams are in a Samsung facility sitting around and changing some little things here and there.

Have you ever seen any interviews with their design and UX teams? No. That's because they don't exist.

Have you ever heard the name of their head UI person? You'd think that, given the success of the Samsung tablet, that the person would be giving interviews left and right. Anyone? Anyone?

Here's an analogy that even a closed-minded geek can understand. You have a Wii, XBox 360, and a PS3. Which one of them looks like the other? They all have an optical drive and a bunch of A/V output ports. Could you, at a glance, mistake one for another?

Re:Illiterate troll?

[Undead Waffle]

Can Samsung's UX team point out exactly how they designed all of Samsung's hardware and software? Why do their icons look that way? Why have the sheen/gloss instead of a flat look?

I don't know about the icons, but most laptops these days are glossy because that's what people tend to buy. This isn't something that started with tablets.

Why not make the icons circular vignettes instead of rounded squares?

Because a square shape is much more practical. It gives you more space to work with to come up with a descriptive picture. It's kind of like these things called "icons" some of us have had for decades on our computers. I've seen plenty of rounded icons on non-Apple devices long before the iPad.

Why taper the back of your device just so?

Ok, may have been copied. But it's a stupid thing to block a product over.

Have you ever heard the name of their head UI person? You'd think that, given the success of the Samsung tablet, that the person would be giving interviews left and right. Anyone? Anyone?

I can't name the head UI person of really any company ever. Most companies don't have celebrity designers.

Here's an analogy that even a closed-minded geek can understand. You have a Wii, XBox 360, and a PS3. Which one of them looks like the other? They all have an optical drive and a bunch of A/V output ports. Could you, at a glance, mistake one for another?

Those devices aren't trying to pack relatively standardized parts into the lightest and smallest packages they can. They don't have to support a flat display on the front or fit nicely in your hands. I have some ear buds that look a lot like some old ear buds I had from a previous brand. Should those companies sue each other because there's a limited number of practical ways to make a device fit in the ear?

I don't know why I'm even responding to an obvious Apple fanboy but that post being modded insightful is absurd.

Re:Illiterate troll?

[silentcoder]

>Another example would be cars (automobiles for your Americans). All are basically a rectangular block on top of 4 wheels, with 2 or 4 doors. Yet you would have no problem identifying one zooming past you in a second or two.

Actually - that's pretty much not true anymore. My previous car was a Ford Fiesta, on many an occasion I would think "oh another ford Fiesta" while driving and realize as I got close enough to see the logo that it was in fact an Opel Corsa (I believe in the USA they are sold as Chevrolet) or a KIA picanto or any other 4-door compact.
Their shape is all but entirely identical.

I now drive an Audi A3 and when I'm not close enough to see the logos I cannot distinguish it from any other 2-Dear semi-luxury car, Japanese, Korean, American or German.

In fact - your argument proves the opposite. Cars shapes are determined - above all - by the laws of aerodynamics. Those laws remain the same regardless of who designs which is why in any given generation most cars converge on the same rough shape - the shape that is - with current engineering skill - the most aerodynamic we can do.
For any given class of car - that's the same shape. There is only one most aerodynamic shape for a sedan possible, only one for an SUV, only one for a 4x4 and only one for a compact.
You can easily tell the class - but the maker - from shape and design ? No way - because form has to follow function and the function is constrained by the laws of physics that puts a natural limit on creativity.
As technology improves the shapes change - but within a year or two everybody else has changed in the exact same way.

The same thing applies here - there are notable constraints on the design placed by what it has to do. It must be portable, maximize screen space, comfortable to work with, easy to rest on any surface etc.
In fact the design follows inevitably from the purpose of the device - and all devices converge on it. Star Trek on a purely hypothetical level converged on the exact same design 30 years before the ipad came out.

As for your silly statements about popularity... did it every occur to you that perhaps Korean's don't have the celebrity obsession of Americans ? Samsung certainly doesn't have the kind of fanboism apple has - and thus there is no celebrity. We don't see interviews with their design head because Samsung's users are not "fans" - just people who chose a product that met their needs, they don't idolize the guy who drew the pictures it was made from. Apple has the same celebrity appeal as Angelina Jolie and the same slavish uncritical love from it's fans.
Community theater actors may have no less talent, but they don't get followed around by the paparazzi.
Now whether geek-celebrity as espoused by apple is something we should encourage or not is beside the point -but it is the reason why we never really hear from the designers in other companies. A little bit in Microsoft - but who is the chief UI designer for Oracle ? Who is the chief UI designer at google (whose interfaces I really like for the slick simplicity). Who is the brilliant designer that designed that slick and elegant interface for my Audi's radio system ? It's familiar to anybody whose used a car radio - yet massively advanced over the cheapo that came in my ford. Audi is a company noted for brilliant designs and ergonomics, but nowhere in the press do I read interviews with their designers either.

Celebrity is an American phenomenon, geek-Celebrity is mostly an Apple pheonomenon, that doesn't mean nobody else HAS people who do these jobs, just that those who do them at other companies don't get interviewed by rolling stone magazine.

Re:Illiterate troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the icons, but most laptops these days are glossy because that's what people tend to buy. This isn't something that started with tablets.

Except for all the people who immediately put a matte-finish screen protector on their laptop or phone. Sorry, I think your claim is baseless. Show some numbers to back your assertion.

Because a square shape is much more practical. It gives you more space to work with to come up with a descriptive picture. It's kind of like these things called "icons" some of us have had for decades on our computers. I've seen plenty of rounded icons on non-Apple devices long before the iPad.

Is that a quote from Samsung's design team? Or are you just voicing your own opinion? You have no idea why Samsung did that. From all the evidence so far, my guess (which is just as valid as your guess) is that Samsung did it to copy iOS.

Most companies don't have celebrity designers.

Except for all the companies that do. A few household names as examples: Chanel. Shelby. Porsche. Gucci. Pei. And just about every other architecture, fashion, personal care, and video game manufacturer. That's hundreds of billions of dollars of industry, bucko. Good thing Ron Popeil doesn't read Slashdot.

Those devices aren't trying to pack relatively standardized parts into the lightest and smallest packages they can. They don't have to support a flat display on the front or fit nicely in your hands. I have some ear buds that look a lot like some old ear buds I had from a previous brand. Should those companies sue each other because there's a limited number of practical ways to make a device fit in the ear?

I don't know why I'm even responding to an obvious Apple fanboy but that post being modded insightful is absurd.

You should open up a Wii sometime. Those relatively standardized parts are packed pretty tightly into that small, light package. Your claim that there are a limited number of practical ways to design a smartphone is basically you admitting that you have zero imagination. Sorry to hear of your affliction, but it does seems to be a shamefully common problem nowadays.

I wasn't going to bother responding to your obvious Samsung fawning, but your post being modded as insightful is an insult to anyone with creativity or actual insight.

Yay for conflation?

[Anubis IV]

Trademarks are not patents. Patents are not trademarks. You'll have a hard time getting a patent on a rectangle, but getting a trademark on an iconic design that just happens to be rectangular? Sure. Trademarks are there to protect the look and feel of products from copies, knock-offs, and imitations, and to ensure that consumers don't confuse products they see with one another. People, including the summary, keep referring to this as strictly a patent battle, but trademarks are playing a large role as well, and the "rectangle" complaint the submitter made is referencing trademarks, not patents.

Speaking personally, I'm a dyed-in-wool Apple fanboy, but even I didn't think too highly of Apple's recent complaints and lawsuits. That is, I didn't until I went into a Best Buy a few months back, walked up to what I thought was an iPad display next to the Apple section of the store, activated the device, and discovered it was a Galaxy Tab. If I got them confused both at a distance and up close, what hope does a typical consumer have? Trademarks are designed to prevent that sort of confusion, and I honestly think it's justified here.

Re:Yay for conflation?

[Chuck Chunder]

That is, I didn't until I went into a Best Buy a few months back, walked up to what I thought was an iPad display next to the Apple section of the store, activated the device, and discovered it was a Galaxy Tab.

Isn't that, in large part, because Apple's design avoids having anything that particularly distinguishes it as Apple? IE there is no Apple logo on the front. It seems to me that Apple is trying to claim what is essentially a lack of trade dress as trade dress, thereby gaining protection over something essentially generic rather than something specific.

I think it is a worrying technique because the trademark stops being a useful tool for the customer (ie letting them know a certain company stands behind a particular product) and starts being a weapon against other companies implementing fairly basic designs.

Re:Bullshit Description

[GumphMaster]

Sure:

In the latest edition of the Apple vs. Samsung patent fight, the ABC is reporting that Samsung has filed in Australian and Japanese courts seeking an injunction to halt sales of the iPhone 4S for alleged 3G patent violations. It remains to be seen whether Samsung has any better luck with the retaliatory strike in Australian and Japanese courts than it did with courts in the Netherlands. I expect that Samsung will fail partly because of overseas precedent, but mostly because their patents are technical and narrow in scope.

Happier now?

For the record I do not own any Apple product, any Android based device (Samsung or other), or a mobile phone. I hold shares in neither company. Ultimately, I couldn't care less about these particular two devices, but I do care about the collateral damage to innovation caused by the patents-as-weapons mentality regardless of who is wielding it.

Re:Not (primarily) about round-rects

[Kenja]

I like how they have an angled picture of the Q1 so you cant see that other then having more buttons, it is basically the same rounded corner rectangle as the iPad. Its just a different aspect ratio and is used in landscape mode primarily. Sound familiar?

Regardless of if Samsung did "copy" Apple, the idea that Apple should own a shape should be fought. Especially when that shape is the only practical one for tablets (and always has been).

Re:Not (primarily) about round-rects

[MrDoh!]

Trouble is, even looking at that list, when you see;
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ
on shows aired in 2003, that were rectangular glass fronted, rounded edges portable machines, it all appears obvious that Apple haven't really invented much, just taken what's out there and put polish on it. The move to better screens, everyone was leaving resistive behind.
Why do people link to just some of Samsung's designs with dates and skips things like;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
that was released March 2010 and shown before the iPad was even publically admitted to exist.

You can look at Apple's kit and say 'yeah, they look great, but truly innovative? or just another design style that the industry was moving to anyway, for some things, Apple got there first, for some things, they got there late, but still claimed they invented it.

I think that's what winds most people up about this, we've got devices on our desks that are claimed to be infringing that are obviously not, or other devices that came out before the ipad/phone but did all the same stuff.

Re:A clean uncluttered rectangle wasn't that obvio

[Anthony Mouse]

Archos 9, the year before the first iPad.

If you want I can remake that web page you linked and put it where the iPad is and put the iPad at the bottom. Or are you finished trolling?

Re:If Apple and Samsung are fighting it out

[Max Littlemore]

I don't think that's quite true. Apple has initiated all of this and Samsung has retaliated quite reluctantly. I have been wondering why Samsung didn't launch this action months ago. Samsung doesn't seem to want to stifle competition, because they make money from phones Apple sells.

Re:A clean uncluttered rectangle wasn't that obvio

[Omestes]

If it wasn't for Apple's iPad and iPhone, Samsung's tablets and phones would look like this [askdavetaylor.com] and this [mobilegazette.com].

Either that or... form follows function. Capacitive screens and more robust OSs have killed the need for buttons. This limits the design space available. A modern tablet (with or without Apple) would eventually have turned into a nothing but a face and a screen. All of those buttons on your cherry-picked photos are completely superfluous thanks to better technology (which Apple didn't invent). The only choice is the size of the screen, the color of the flat space around it, and whether to round your corners or not. Black is a normal color for these things, as well. Go to your local electronics store and see what the popular color for all gadgets currently is... You'll be shocked to learn that its black. Further... icons in a grid... really? I've have icons in a grid long before anyone even thought of smart phones. I've have hand-held devices (back when they were called PDAs) with icons in a grid. Actually a grid is the most sensible way of arranging small squares... Go figure.

I don't have a horse in this race. Both Apple and Samsung are behaving badly. But at least Samsung actually is using patents that DO something, which isn't nearly as dangerous as the shit Apple is pulling.

This is true, since there existed flat objects with rounded corners, and a centered touch sensitive screen before the iPad, or iPhone.

Unless the argument is that Samsung should have been forced to stick superfluous buttons on their modern devices, since obviously Apple is special.

Further, icons in a grid

Re:If Apple and Samsung are fighting it out

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

No. While they are both fighting each other (although Apple seems to have the better lawyers after a few salvo exchanges),

Apple doesn't have the better lawyers, they have the better case.

Re:Hey, buddy.

[maxwell demon]

The case was dismissed because, other than having white rectangular windows with black borders, the Apple look and feel was nothing like the Xerox one.

Xerox obviously forgot to patent the Rectangle.

Re:Hey, buddy.

[starmonkey]

Anyone who talks about a company "stealing" something as vague as the look-and-feel of an interface has obviously never invented anything. Inventors usually stand on the shoulders of inventors before them, making small improvements and combinations of several existing ideas. It's a much more evolutionary process than a spontaneous leaps-and-bounds process. Example: Does your website use a menu bar on the side or top of the screen, instead of a bunch of hypertext links in the main body of the page? Did you invent that concept, or "steal" it from someone else?

Re:If Apple and Samsung are fighting it out

[catmistake]

I don't think that's quite true. Apple has initiated all of this and Samsung has retaliated quite reluctantly. I have been wondering why Samsung didn't launch this action months ago. Samsung doesn't seem to want to stifle competition, because they make money from phones Apple sells.

I think Apple's initial claim was valid... its obvious the Samsung product in question would never have existed if not for iPhone. Don't get caught up over rectangles, Samsung is clearly and without any duplicity whatsoever attempting to take advantage of iPhone's popularity by releasing a product that superficially looks identical to Apple's. You seem to be of the opinion "I'm suing you because you're suing me" is a perfectly valid legal strategy. If it is, then sure... Samsung is just doing what it can not to get caught under the deadly wheels of Apple's crushing anti-competitive practices as it chews up and digests industrial giants on its way to world domination.