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.
Fair amount of it here
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-samsungs-step-by-step-guide-for-how-to-copy-an-iphone-2012-8?op=1
Watch those corners
Two problems with what you've said:
1) A monopoly on smartphones is not a monopoly at all, since dumbphones still account for the majority of the market. Companies have tried to sue Apple in the past for having a monopoly on the Mac market and using it to their advantage, but they've always been dismissed since Macs are merely a part of the larger PC market, and a rather small part at that.
2) Having a monopoly is not necessarily a problem. It's when a monopoly acts in an anti-competitive manner that there are problems.
Also, from an icons standpoint, they said Meizu didn't infringe, but Samsung did. The meizu calendar icon looks WAY more like the iphone icon than the samsung one that Apple highlighted.
This is a simplistic and incorrect view.
Before the iPhone, most phones didn't have a large touchscreen, but that doesn't mean that everyone copied Apple or that others shouldn't be allowed to compete. Both Samsung and LG had an iPhone-like design before the iPhone. Patents should only be awarded for novel, non-obvious designs. The design was always obvious, which is why a large touchscreen had been used in sci-fi and mock-ups in the past. The problem is that the technology wasn't there. You needed a beefy mobile processor to power the display, and good battery life.
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. Apple by far did the best of marketing it. The technology still wasn't cheap, which is why the LG Prada and iPhone were both $600 (subsidized). The Prada was marketed as a luxury item, where as Apple appealed to the masses (even if they all couldn't afford it yet).
But LG won a design award in 2005 for what Apple claims they should have sole ownership of, when they didn't demo it publicly or release it until 2006. Samsung has documentation they had theirs in 2005 as well.
The fact that the design became popular and common when the technology finally supported it doesn't mean Apple is right. Perpetuating that lie is harmful to competition.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
They submitted the evidence too late, so it was excluded. It had nothing to do with the importance or worth of the evidence itself. Apple actually had some of their evidence excluded for the exact same reason, though that's not getting as much press.
This is a simplistic and incorrect view.
Yours is also a simplistic view.
Apple's case is not based on "We own the idea of phones with big touchscreens, Samsung made a phone with a big touchscreen, therefore Samsung infringed upon our idea, case closed."
The claims are far more specific than just "phone with touchscreen" or "phone with rounded corners."
But, of course, a twelve-point comparison makes for a lousy sound bite, so we keep harping on ALL YOUR TOUCHSCREEN WITH ROUND CORNERS ARE BELONG TO APPLE!!!1
But LG won a design award in 2005 for what Apple claims they should have sole ownership of, when they didn't demo it publicly or release it until 2006.
The Prada was a slide phone with a hard keyboard. That's a very different design.
Not if you use their micropayments plan. Their fee is 5 cents + 5%, which works out to be 10 cents for a $0.99 app, way less than what Apple or Google charges.
You have a bit of a misunderstanding but the situation is complicated because it really is a result of mistakes by everyone: Samsung, Apple, and the Judge.
Samsung did bring up their evidence near the end of discovery but they were still in the phase of the trial when such things should be admissible as long as it wasn't intentionally delayed until the end. There is practically a tradition in the legal profession of submitting exhibits and discovery at the last possible moment, and having it ruled inadmissible is one of the risks they take with that and Apple won in saying that the F700 should be inadmissible. That's fine.
Where things go sketchy is that Apple then brought up the F700 design as an example of a Samsung iPhone copy in its opening statements. Samsung argued that by bringing up the F700 Apple opened the door for further information about the device (particuarly that it was in development before the iphone was announced) which is the way things normally work for this sort of situation. The Judge said no. However the Judge also has ruled and issued statements that everything in the trial is to be open, so Samsung pointed to the evidence when asked what the flap was about by a media contact.
The Judge was angry about this, but the Samsung lawyer's response was basically bulletproof and hung the Judge to dry by both her own statements and overwhelming precedent. Apple's lawyers have been very loudly hoping to capitalize on the Judge's unhappiness while (hypocritically IMO) they (or Apple PR) have been feeding the press a steady stream of "Samsung did a horrible thing by speaking to the press!" quotes.
Samsung's legal team made a mistake in not getting the F700 in earlier. Apple's legal team made a mistake in mentioning the F700, and in doing so allowed Samsung's team to immediately tee-up this case for a very strong appeal should they lose. The Judge made a mistake in her very aggressive response to Samsung's media statement and may have strengthened Samsung's appeal case by seeming to not be impartial. The only party seeming to be doing a perfect job is the Jury, which has been following the instructions to avoid all media on the case and thus likely doesn't have a clue about all of this bickering.