Apple's Legal Fight With Samsung Revealed a Gold Mine of Top-Secret Information (bgr.com)

An anonymous reader writes with this story about how the Apple vs. Samsung battle brought to light the inner workings of Apple product development. BGR reports: "Following a contentious patent battle that raged on for nearly five years, Samsung last week finally agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages for infringing upon a number of iPhone and iPad patents. While Samsung may still be holding out hope that it may someday recover those millions, it seems that we can finally start closing the book on the most widely publicized patent dispute in recent memory, one which saw Apple and Samsung battle it out in courtrooms across all corners of the globe.

One of the more interesting aspects of Apple's legal battle with Samsung is that it gave us an unprecedented look behind the veil of secrecy that typically shrouds all aspects of Apple's product development and day-to-day operations. Over the course of discovery, innumerable court filings, and a fascinating trial, the inner workings of Apple were brought to the forefront for the fist time in history. From photographs of iPhone prototypes to how Apple conducts market research, Apple's legal battles with Samsung provided tech enthusiasts with a treasure trove of previously top-secret information.

With Samsung now agreeing to pony up for damages, we thought it'd be a good time to take a step back, reminisce, and take a look at some of the more interesting nuggets of information the hard-fought patent dispute brought to light."

Comments

8-sided model is interesting

[GameboyRMH]

Those octagon-like corners might be a good way to get around Apple's patent on rounded corners. Could've saved Samsung half a billion dollars.

Re:8-sided model is interesting

[Anubis IV]

To quote myself from a few weeks ago when someone else misunderstood how design patents differ from utility patents...

For some reason, many Slashdotters seem to be completely unaware (or perhaps willfully ignorant) of the distinction between utility patents (i.e. what we think of when we say "patents") and design patents, which are something else entirely. As a result, when they hear that "Apple got a patent on rounded corners", they rightfully think that's utterly ridiculous and an example of a broken patent system, when it's actually nothing of the sort, since design patents more closely resemble a time-limited trademark than they do a utility patent.

The reality of the situation is that Apple is one of likely thousands of entities with design patents that include a claim for rounded corners. That's because those design patents aren't just making a claim for rounded corners. They're for rounded corners + a long list of additional claims that makes each of those products uniquely identifiable as the product they are. In the case of the iPhone 5 series, the design patent was for something along the lines of rounded corners + chamfered edges + aluminum trim + flat glass front + aluminum back + no adornment on the front + some other stuff I'm forgetting. I've seen a similar design patent filed by Samsung that covers some of their phones, and, as you'd expect, rounded corners were included in their list of claims as well. Again, each claim is considered alongside the other claims, rather than independently of the other claims, and for a competitor to be infringing, they need to be infringing against not just one of the claims, but against many or all of them. After all, rounded corners do not an iPhone make.

All of which is to say, yes, changing something simple like that may very well have prevented Samsung from being out a half billion dollars. Or they could have ditched any one of the other number of features they had that were listed as claims in the relevant design patents that Apple was issued. Do a tapered back/sides instead of having a flat back and flat sides. Do a rounded edge around the screen instead of a chamfered one. Curve the glass instead of having it flat. Make the corners elliptical instead of circular. There are any number of ways to circumvent design patents. It's not particularly challenging.

Amazing... a three-paragraph summary...

[QuietLagoon]

.... that says absolutely nothing.

Money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forstall cryptically told them that if they opted to join, they would have to “work hard, give up nights, work weekends for years.” Not mincing words, Forstall also told prospective team members: “If you choose to accept this role, you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life.”

You see, this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be. And in Cupertino, CA with those work hours and demands, I'd be looking for $500K per year - at the minimum. See, all the free California shit pizza in the World isn't good enough compensation.

But, there's a huge line behind me of people with no money sense or lives who jumped at that chance. That's their choice. But when you wake up one day in your late thirties, alone and with diminishing career opportunities, you ask yourself how you could be so stupid to devote so much of your life to a job. And there's this jab of pain when you see some of your classmates who pursued less demanding careers that have a loving spouse and family. And then your job is off-shored.

Re:Money?

[Karlt1]

You see, this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be

On the other hand, if I put on my resume in 2008 that I had played a major role in the design of the iPhone, I think I could command much higher salaries than if I said I wrote yet another line of business software-as-a-service web app.

Re:Short summary of the "secret" information

[Anonymous Coward]

Long product roadmap: Apple plans many products and features years in advance.

Only about a year in advance. That's the year it takes to see other people release a feature and then copy it.