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

I thought Apple didn't conduct market research.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> how Apple conducts market research

I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. http://appleinsider.com/articl...

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.

Re:8-sided model is interesting

[Gr8Apes]

The thing you conveniently overlook is that the Apple and Samsung devices under discussion were DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS and had different buttons and so would be hard to mistake for each other. .

Yep, because you say so.

Re:8-sided model is interesting

[tlhIngan]

Other than rounded corners, what exactly is there in the design patent that Apple asserted?

Well, it was a rounded screen, with a grid of icons. Below that grid was a static set of icons. The upper grid of icons could be swiped to move from "page" to "page" while the lower static set stayed the same.

That was the gist of it. And no stock Android OS had that - the "static grid of icons" only applied to the home screen, but that was fixed by having stuff like clocks and widgets there, so it wasn't a grid of icons.

For a long time, when you went to the app launcher on Android, it was a scrolling grid of icons, which also meant it didn't violate the patent. Either way, the app launcher does not have a static grid of icons, so at no point on a stock Android build was the patent violated.

Ironically, if you wrote an app that behaved like an iPhone, you would be safe as well, because your app does not have "rounded corner screen".

The issue was that TouchWiz itself in the early days was a grid of icons with a static grid underneath it, and it was basically working just like the iPhone, even the dots representing pages were similar (Samsung attempted to change it by putting a page number inside the dot).

Short summary of the "secret" information

[UnknowingFool]

For those who don't want to read all of it, here's a short list of secrets

1. Prototypes: Some were form-factor prototypes; some were working models. Some ideas like a curved glass screen or iPad kickstand clearly did not make it into a product
2. Early iPhone project information: Had to use existing Apple personnel only and so secret that people were not even told what they were doing when recruited or that they could talk about the project: think Fight Club
3. Long product roadmap: Apple plans many products and features years in advance.
4. Apple does market research: in fact a lot of research.

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.

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

[QuietLagoon]

.... that says absolutely nothing.

Re:Amazing... a three-paragraph summary...

[chispito]

TFA isn't much better. A bunch of "crazy iphone prototypes" that just look like phones, and details on a secretive development and exhaustive design process. Yawn.

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.

Whoa, that iPad prototype

[Solandri]

For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006, long before the iPad was even a rumor, and even pre-dating the iPhone. Notice how the front looks identical to the later Samsung tablets, just with bigger bezels and no button. And it contains all of the distinctive elements of the original iPad that Apple sued over except the home button - flat, rounded corners, black bezels with white/silver edges. As if Apple simply ripped off Samsung's design, then turned around and sued Samsung for ripping them off.

The argument against that version of history has always been that the back of the picture frame looks nothing like the back of the iPad. Well, now we have this image of the back of an early iPad prototype, lending support to the theory that Apple used Samsung's picture frame as a starting point for their iPad design.

Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype

[rsborg]

For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006

That's great - I had no idea digital picture frames were secretly tablets in disguise! Who doesn't remember digital picture frames from 2003-2004 sold at Shaper Image? Guess Sharper Image (or whoever actually manufactured the products) should sue Apple too!

Re:This is getting stupid

[davester666]

assumes a basic fact with no evidence. there is no evidence Samsung worked on ANYTHING like either iOS or the original iPhone prior to the iPhone being announced.

Re:Top Secret?

[k6mfw]

Am I missing something?

no, it's all about click-baits.

Re:This is getting stupid

[NatasRevol]

how the hell did Samsung get info on it years before the release

You mean Apple's hardware partner? No idea...

Re:This is getting stupid

[ITRambo]

I'd mod you up if I had points today. Your comment is right on point. Bids for manufacturing require knowledge of what is to be made.

More like a crappy garage sale than gold mine

[JoeyRox]

Like most garage sales the stuff was mostly someone else's crap that you wouldn't want for yourself. Apple's reaction to Samsung's âoeThe next big thing is already hereâ ad campaign was interesting though.

Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled

[Gr8Apes]

I had no issue getting AppleCare reset to my purchase date for what otherwise would have been an out of warranty repair. Perhaps you didn't keep that receipt? Receipts are important.

Re:This is getting stupid

[DanJ_UK]

Samsung is Korean, not 'chink'.