Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's Comparison of Galaxy S To iPhone
david.emery writes "In a document from the ongoing Samsung/Apple trial, provided in both English translation and Korean original, Samsung engineers provided a detailed comparison of user interface features in their phone against the iPhone. In almost all cases, the recommendation was to adopt the iPhone's approach. Among other observations, this shows how much work goes into defining the Apple iPhone user experience."
Ars has an article on the evidence offered by Apple so far.
What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones? Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.
Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?
Best Slashdot Co
The comparison of phones/tablets available prior to the iPhone/iPad and those that came out after both were unveiled show that Samsung is definitely in the wrong as far as design styles go.
Whether this should be something someone can patent is another argument that I'm not going to get into here.
While the interfaces look and work similarly, somehow Samsung's implentation, combined with some of the more nice things about android like a proper back button (though android uses it inconsistently), is superior to the iOS experience, at least for me. I guess it's only fair. Apple has stolen plenty of their ideas for the UI from others and enhanced and extended them. Seems only fair that others should do the same to Apple's implementation.
It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!". Question is, were there PATENTS that covered this and that and was there a patent infringement in such cases? Moving a "Loading..." text from top right to middle of the screen doesn't, for example, look like "patent infringement", and if it IS a patent covering that, well then my personal opinion is that patents have really gone too far.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Anyone have a mirror?
Ford suing Chevrolet on copying it's design for an automobile, submitting emails/notes from Chevrolet engineers who are analyzing/comparing their new car with Ford's:
1. It has four wheels w/ rubber tires.
2. There is a driver's station with locking mechanism, steering wheel, gear shift, brake pedal, and accelerator.
3. There are seats for the driver and passengers.
4. There are 2 to 4 doors for driver and passenger entrance/egress.
5. There is some bulk storage area (trunk, etc).
6. There are at least 2 headlights, tail lights, and turn indicators.
.
.
.
So, obviously, Chevy "stole" Ford's design!
A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.
Who is going to build or invent Apples new screens in the future? Sharp? Yeah Sharp is almost bankrupt, laying off people, they will not have much to spend on R&D. All the new tech for screens is going to be coming from Samsung. Apple just puts parts together they don't make or invent the parts. They are biting the hand that feeds them.
I know it may be taboo to throw a competitor's device into the fray (and possibly opening up yourself to litigation from them), but seeing as how the LG Prada (LG KE850) had already won a design award months before the extremely similar looking iPhone had even been announced I would imagine that Samsung would jump at the opportunity to show prior art for some of Apple's "design patents" just to get them eliminated.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones?
Unlikely. There is a difference between providing a similar product and slavishly copying one. I don't pretend to know the details of this case but if Samsung simply copied everything Apple did then they deserve the consequences. Apple's way is hardly the only way.
Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.
Apple lacks the market power in phones to do either and all it would take for a mass migration away from Apple would be one bad or inferior product. Android based phones collectively outsell iOS based phones and there is no indication that this lawsuit is going to change that. Arguably the telecoms are closer to being monopolies - they certainly are an oligopoly right now - and they have NO interest in letting Apple gain control. That's why they rather enthusiastically push Android phones - it creates an alternative and keeps Apple in check.
Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?
The antitrust suit resulted in a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. It changed little about how they behave and certainly made no appreciable dent in their monopoly. What has been killing Microsoft is that the world is moving to something other than the PC. Microsoft has never figured out how achieve the same kind of dominance that Windows and Office achieved on a different platform. Not for lack of trying - games, mobile, search, etc. They've tried a lot of stuff and some is even profitable but nothing like Windows and Office. Furthermore they now have to compete with a resurgent Apple and linux on the PC. They aren't going away anytime soon but Microsoft is unlikely to achieve its previous high perch ever again.
The internal combustion engine is a perfect example. The internal combustion engine COULD NOT have been patented. The diesel engine was. One particular way of making an internal combustion engine. But with the patent for a diesel engine, a skilled craftsman had all he needed to make a fully functional diesel engine.
The reason there are so many different types of engine is that they were designed to avoid having to license a patent. This worked very well. It created innovation AND if you wanted to produce an existing engine in your own factory you just paid a relatively low fee.
But Apple wants to patent ideas. No a blue print but a concept. Not even the concept of an internal combustion engine but the concept of an engine. And the patents they submit provide nothing that a skilled craftsman can use to build a device. At most, they can give an engineer an problem to solve where the problem is "how do I actually build the product the patent theorizes".
That is not how patents are supposed to work. The idea for an engine is after all far older then actual engines but all the engineers who made engines would have to pay for the license to use the idea of some long dead guy if Apple had its way.
Go look through Apples patents, every single one of them. I bet less then a single percent contains the plans with which a skilled craftsman in the field can build a working product without having to design something himself.
Imagine if Apple was in medicine, they would patent a cure for cancer. The patent has nothing in it but "It would make us a lot of money if we could cure cancer, now someone else actually invent it and pay us".
Not how it is supposed to go. If you really did discover a cure for cancer, you deserve a patent and people would happily pay you for it. But NOT just for the idea that curing cancer would be nice.
Sadly the amoral Americans have decided the patent office needs to turn a profit and you don't turn a profit by turning customers away. So the patent office and grants every payment and the taxpayers pay for courtsystem to try to sort it all out.
Conclusion: Americans are a problem.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In trying to view the scribd document, I temporarily enabled JavaScript once, twice, three times... at that point the NoScript menu was so long it filled the screen top-to-bottom, and I had to scroll to pick it again. I gave up at that point.
Is it really *that* hard to not have so many layers of JavaScript stuffed in there that you can't getting the page to render in one or two tries? Sheesh.
A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.
The government doesn't mind monopolies and in some cases monopolies are actually useful. Patents are granted because a *temporary* monopoly is a lesser evil than the Free Rider problem. Some monopolies are hard to avoid (utilities) and some are regulated. The problem is when monopolies start to abuse their power in ways that hurt consumers or the economy in general. Standard Oil was broken up because having a single unregulated company in controlling the nation's energy supply was demonstrably dangerous. You can argue that patents are too long or issued for frivolous "inventions" but they exist for a very good reason. Monopolies as such aren't the problem - unchecked monopolies sometimes are and that is when the government worries about them.
The pdf at the following link
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/44
is no longer loading just FYI everyone.
Walmart gets away with selling a Dr. Pepper clone named Dr. Thunder, for example, whose packaging is clearly reminiscent of Dr. Pepper's. So I don't see why a "generic iPhone" can't come as close as "generic Dr. Pepper" does on the trade-dress claim.
Walmart gets away with it because Walmart can hurt the makers of Dr Pepper. Walmart could drop their entire product line with little effect to the bottom line of Walmart since it is a tiny fraction of their business. Losing Walmart as a customer would hurt the makers of Dr Pepper much worse since Walmart accounts for a rather significant portion of their business. Sure Dr. Pepper's maker could sue Walmart and might even win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
Apple on the other hand cannot hurt Samsung in the same way. Samsung has potentially much to gain by copying Apple and they know it will be harder for Apple to retaliate since Apple's only real option is a lawsuit. Certainly risky but nothing like the situation above with Walmart.
It is exactly the same amount as Google charges for apps in the Play store.
Unlike iOS devices, Android devices have alternatives to the Play Store. Google charges 0% for applications distributed through "unknown sources" such as Amazon Appstore, SlideME, Soc.io, or the developer's own web site. The key difference is that the user doesn't need to exploit a security vulnerability in the operating system to install third-party app stores on Android devices.
Tell me what it is
It is what it is. A very exact description of how something looks, including the icons on the screen and the exact coloring used. A line that Samsung crossed.
You can tell it's specific because Apple is not suing all Android makers over these design patents. Just Samsung.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Never mind the fact that iPad packaging doesn't have the word "Tab" or "Tablet" anywhere, doesn't have the word "Samsung" anywhere, doesn't have the word "Galaxy" anywhere, and similarly, nowhere on the Tab 10.1 packaging does "Pad" appear, not does anything related to Apple appear...
And how exactly would a purchaser who had not seen an Apple iPod box before know that?
In fact all they would have to go on was thing thing in front of them in the display case, which looked just like an iPad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This looks like Samsung had software engineers (not UI designers) make the UIs, then sent the prototype to UI Consultants and asked them to compare their UI to the iPhone's. The vast majority of suggestions that were made would be obvious to most UI designers.
What Samsung's engineers did was sensible and standard practice for anyone doing interface design. You do research, see what works, what doesn't and design accordingly. In some respects UX is a science. There's a lot of theory that comes into play; colors, shapes, relative sizing and positioning. It is inevitable that within certain environments there will be an ideal interface. I didn't look through the entire document, but what I did see seemed to simply point out flaws in Samsung's interface versus Apple's approach. The UX flaws I saw, things like overlapping windows or poorly designed button layouts, were legitimate problems.
It isn't like Samsung was trying to pass their own phone for an iPhone, as some Chinese companies are apt to do. They were simply studying the industry's current best practices. I can only imagine how badly crippled web development and design would be if it were subject to this kind of nonsense.
It's no different than a million other interfaces. Nearly all industrial machinery all features a bright red button for shut off. If Apple had come up with that I bet they'd start suing everyone in creation for replicating it. Even worse if they had come up with the molly-guard too.
Restated for a different era:
There are few if any issues w/AT&T having a monopoly in phones.
The issue comes up when AT&T (or any other monopoly) uses their monoply in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting down the air supply of innovators)
Is the problem with monopolies perhaps more clear now? They *ALWAYS* end in less innovation... ALWAYS.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
In almost all cases, the recommendation was to adopt the iPhone's approach. Among other observations, this shows how much work goes into defining the Apple iPhone user experience
So a document showing UI issues through comparison with someone whose implementation demonstrates those issues concludes that the other implementation might be worth learning from?
Really? There's a sodding surprise.
Had this been written by the marketing team rather than an engineering department then it would've highlighted all the superior (usability) features in the S1 and failed entirely to draw attention to the things mentioned in this doc.
Samsung may or may not have copied elements of Apple's design, but relying on this document to prove it would be naive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2012/07/05/picard-tablet_134149797969.jpg
http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-content/2011/08/2001-tablet-550x247.jpg
They all owe money to your local science fiction writer
There are numerous examples of automakers with near-identical body appearance styles, do they sue each other? There are countless copycat monitor and desktop box styles for computers, do you ever see HP sue them? Samsung has done nothing that any of these other industries are doing and have been doing for decades. It is only this arrogant fashion-worship of Apple that allows anyone to even consider that this lawsuit has merit.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
but in light of this new evidence I have to say that Apple has Samsung dead to right. Before you mark this as Troll please know that I am the exact opposite of an Apple fan-boy. I don't own a single Apple device and every device I do own is an Android! I just have to say that the evidence in that PDF where Samsung Engineers are comparing the Galaxy S xx 's functionality to the I Phone's functionality is undeniable! They clearly were modeling there device after the iPhone without a doubt. Sorry Samsung, but if you are going to cheat at least be smart enough to not get caught! At first I thought that it was silly, I had even made posts in other Slashdot articles stating that you shouldn't be able to patent something as simple as a shape, but now I realize that it isn't just about the shape. It is about the package as a whole and Samsung was definitely copying.
Big flaw in your argument: On the Best Buy displays for Samsung devices, it is VERY clearly marketed as being Samsung,...YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT - iPads and Galaxy Tabs are not just sitting in boxes on the shelf.
That is in support of my argument. Before you ever see a box, all you see is (AS I ALREADY IMPLIED) the display model. Where the Samsung looks just like the iPad. Why else do you think they would bother to take the risk to copy the design so exactly?
Your fundamental flaw is that first time tablet buyers even KNOW to ask for an iPad. They see the samesung that looks just like what a friend has (since they have an iPad) and ask for one, not realizing nor really understanding there's much of a difference between an Apple table and a Samsung tablet.
It doesn't matter if they have to ask by brand because most people are simply not tech aware enough to know that matters, at least at first...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Aren't most of these items in stores locked away??
EXACTLY.
If they are locked away would they not specifically have to ask for an iPad, or a Galaxy tab.
Most first time tablet buyers (the vast majority of buyers) have no idea those two are different.
They point to a model on a display and say - I'll take that (based on price if two things look identical. And hey, the Samsung looks just like an iPad)...
All the casual consumer knows is what it looks like, and since the Samsung looks just like the iPad they saw at a friends house...
You do not realize how different of a world you and I live in regarding technology. I have overheard some people say that Samsung was a division of Apple!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Groklaw has an entirely different take on this trial. It seems that Samsung is being muzzled by a judge who is far out of her depth. Unfortunately, that means justice will be delayed, perhaps for years, as her errors are taken up in the appeal courts. This trial is also earning Apple the unenviable reputation of "not cool".
and the ZOMG ROUNDED RECTS complete fucking idiocy. I was not disappointed.
Enjoy your imminent failure, neckbeards.
Actually, what he was trying to say is that in terms of Apple's overall revenue, the App Store is actually pretty small. In January of this year, Apple had written out $4 billion of checks to developers. That is 70% of the revenue, putting Apple's revenue at about (appx) $1.7 Billion since the App Store opens.
Apple's current revenue is $1 billion per week. It's not exactly a large slice of Apple's pie. What Americano was saying was actually correct. Apple's revenue primarily comes from hardware, not software.
In 2006, there was a convergence in cheaper displays, better mobile processors and better batteries that you can three companies who had the same design.
Yes:
The Moral Case Against Apple In One Picture
Da Blog
I don't think it received an award in 2005
The LG Prada won the i-F award in Autumn 2006 (it had been submitted as a demo to a bunch of trade and design fairs through that summer). That's why I put "2006" on this timeline.
Da Blog
It's difficult to ignore the abrupt physical design changes that came after the iPhone release.
The iPhone's slate form factor was the culmination of a trend in high-end mobile phones that had been brewing for the previous 7 years and ironically only in 2006 did a combination of SoCs, lower-power screens, commercially feasible augmented glass and higher-density polymer batteries come together. This is what that process looked like. Technology moves in clades.
Da Blog
Wiki says the Prada won the iF award in 2007.
There's a lot of wikis out there. Wikipedia English says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA#iPhone_controversy
Da Blog
Patent wars between companies are because of the patent & court system problems
I agree with you there. However...
I'm not worried yet that this lawsuit will cause any serious problems down the line.
I don't know., If Apple win this then it could be a reprise of the mid-to-late 1980s, when it was busy suing basically everyone who wanted to bring out a WIMP interface. Apple sued and won against Digital Research's GEM claiming that, among a whole host of WIMP objects, Apple owned the right to even basic stuff such text centered below an icon (you know, the way people had been making labels for centuries). Apple's aggressiveness was one of the reasons for UIs (such as NewWave and GEOS) continuing to remain much uglier and clunkier than they needed to far too long. Apple's obvious goal here is to cause Android manufacturers to uglify their phones for the next several years.
Da Blog