My brother's first reaction when he saw my galaxy S was 'Wow, they don't even pretend they don't copy Apple anymore.' The phone has an uncanny similar look to the iPhone 3G. I think Apple had a legitimate case and don't understand all the Samsung love here. Apple wanting to see samsung's upcoming model to see if they are again copying, so they can get a jump on the lawsuit? I say 'fair'. Samsung copied the shit out of that phone design, and much of the OS skin. Uncanny resemblance. Samsung, wanting to see Apple's upcoming products? "On what grounds?"
The question isn't whether samsung decided to build iphone-like phones. Everyone can see that they did, the galaxy devices look way too similar. The question is whether they directly copied it, and apple has legal protection. I don't think they do. I don't think you can claim that samsung directly copied the iphone, either in general or in specifics.
The iphone's grid layout that launches apps is merely an evolution in a long history, starting at the newton, through palm, back to apple: http://www.applegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/inter... . I used to have a palmpilot pro, and you can clearly tell that the iphone's designers learned a lot from that UI. So, when talking about the general design, there's nothing in there that originated in the iphone. So, if there's nothing that apple can claim ownership on in the general case, let's look at specifics.
If anything can be learned from all of this it's that history is written by the winners, and that everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. If it were me, I'd do away with patents entirely. No point to them really, not if you look at how preciously little there is that's actually original in any innovative product.
"Taken as a group, it feels like a remarkably solid case — Samsung can’t just up and countersue Apple with its own patents and hope to walk away with a handshake and a cross-license because of the various trademark, trade dress, and design patent claims. How the company decides to deal with those issues remains to be seen; there’s no question in my mind that Samsung designed TouchWiz to look and feel as much like iOS as possible, and then marketed it as such. . . . . . . Depending on the strength of Samsung’s promised reply and countersuit, my guess is that Apple might be willing to eventually settle the patent claims but will push the trademark and trade dress claims as far as it can — if Apple loses those it’s open season on the iOS aesthetic. You can bet Steve Jobs and Tim Cook aren’t about to let that happen."
First of all, I didn't link to any analysis, just to a bunch of screenshots. Screenshots aren't balanced one way or the other.
But, on the link you posted. The conclusion in that article is actually a fair conclusion to make. It's just not one I agree with. The trade dress claim hinges on consumers being confused between the products, and I don't see it happening. If you can find me one person, anywhere, who bought a galaxy thinking it was an iphone, I'll admit fault and move on.
Any way, my point was more generic than that. Basically, I think everything that's in the iphone had been done before, so the only thing apple can lay claim to is the combination, not any of the parts. Take for example the white slanted phone on the green glossy background. On the face of it, it sounds ironclad, since it's an unusual and unique style of phone icon, right? But, then you look at the skype icon from 2006, and surprise, it's clearly the same icon, except with a round border. You could just as easily argue that apple copied skype's phone icon when they designed the iphone icon. Given enough time, and google image search, you can do the same thing for every one of the iphone's icons, and for any part of its design.
In the end, you end up at the heart of the matter: how different does a phone have to be before it's no longer infringing according to apple? If samsung changes two icons and uses a gray bezel, does that magically make it ok, even if it would still have the "feel" of an iphone? Sounds wishy-washy logic to me. Still though, I do wish samsung hadn't copied the iphone to such a degree. It cheapens a phone which could have stood on its own merits.
I don't think the phones are that similar. Certainly they're not similar enough to cause confusion for anyone under 40. I have seen the comparison and the Galaxy, while it obviously took some hints from the iPhone (as did all subsequent smartphones), has a distinct feel and shape. I know the difference immediately between and iPhone and a Galaxy.
I've seen more than a few people in shops or on transit that were using their iPhones, and it was only when I tried to see (out of curiosity as an app developer) what apps they were using that I noticed they were actually Samsung phones.
As someone who's very tuned in to the tech scene, mobile device trends, and the like, as well as a big fan of my iPhone (having owned each one since they came to Canada), the fact that I, from two or three feet away, would completely mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone means that there's more than just a passing similarity.
Beyond that, consumers generally don't understand the differences. They see two smartphones that look pretty much identical (as far as they know), with similar packaging, form factor, and icons, the salesman tells them that they're essentially the same phone, and one of them is cheaper, they might well pick the Samsung phone over the iPhone, despite their intention being to buy an iPhone specifically.
Yes, consumers will do this. Apple's concern here, though, may be that people will be confused by the issue, whether they end up buying Apple's products or not.
Everyone realizes there are multiple forms of the Galaxy S, right? There's the i9000 international version which quite heavily resembles the iPhone, the Vibrant and the Fascinate/Mesmerize (SGH-T959, SCH-I500, respectively), which maintain a strong resemblance, but have the four soft keys, the Epic (SPH-D700), which departs even more in looks, and the Captivate (SGH-I897), which basically looks nothing like the iPhone, excluding consideration for all the TouchWiz junk. (I'm using US nomenclature here, if you can't tell.)
As of this writing, there exist quite a few comments in the threads derived from the parent which go something like, "What? They don't look the same to me.", and, "Surely you're drunk! They're so the same.", with absolutely no mention of the specific models being argued about. Dumb.
I have both, and I don't think they are too similar. Surely they've got the same form, as in large display, no keyboard, but the iPhone wasn't the first phone with this design.
Otherwise the look&feel is different.
Plus, the border of the original Galaxy S is black, makes a significant difference. Not much room for innovation in a candy-bar touch screen, really.
I'd side with Samsung on the legal argument, as well. Apple is known as very secretive, Samsung announces products FAR ahead. Saying that Apple hasn't announced their products essentially penalizes Samsung for being open about what they have in the works, and announcing and showing their products early. If Apple plans to release the iphone5 this summer (and if history is an example, they do), wouldn't this be the same argument that Apple used?
I'm not a lawyer, but punishment based on pr schemes seems weird to me.
If the final versions aren’t available, Samsung wants “the most current version of each to be produced instead.”
Given that Apple hasn't announced an iPad 3 or an iPhone 5, what are the odds they simply ship Samsung's lawyers an iPad 2 and an iPhone 4 and call it good?
They look fairly close when viewed head on, but then a lot of phones do. The EVO or just about any Android handset without a keyboard looks like a slightly bigger iPhone from the front. They've got a few more buttons, but other than that it's just a big touchscreen.
Turn any of them sideways though and the iPhone still looks better. This picture does a good job of showing that:
Depends. If Apple announce and start selling a new iPhone in 2 months time that's radically different from the iPhone 4 they give Samsung, then Samsung will sue again. They would have been caught going against judges orders. This would jeopardize their fort case against Samsung and piss off the judge. This is not a clever thing to do for the sake of some pedantic hair splitting.
I believe that Ericsson and Nokia own a few patents on ringtones. A phone that plays music, like an MP3 player may not be all that patentable, but what counts as a novel idea now is really different than a decade ago.
What a complete nonsense. The industry moves in certain directions, and everyone is inspired by everyone else. Because there is a thriving legal industry, they call iit "stealing ideas" and "copying". There is no such thing as original design, every design is based on previous designs and adds small new things.
The only group really benefitting are the lawyers and their surrounding workers. Not our innovating tech industry.
Generally most people agree that there is a point at which copying too closely is literally "too close" legally. Some people dispute this, they are not in the majority.
Generally people would agree that Apple is entitled to these same protections.
Generally people would agree that every other non-kirf vendor differentiates their product quite a bit moreso then Samsung has, at least on certain products.
This does not mean Samsung has crossed the line of going too close. It just means they are a lot closer to that line then others.
So Samsung is suing Apple to give them the schematics on their top secret hardware so that Apple won't sue Samsung later for copying their top secret hardware?
That's actually pretty funny. A win/win for Samsung.
So Apple will probably refuse, then Samsung has an arrow to fire at Apple if they claim Samsung copied their hardware.
Some of the lawyers from Samsung have been reading a little too deeply into sun tzu's art of war and Robert Green's 48 laws of power.
The only items that Apple is asking for is pre-production versions of previously announced products that have pre-production versions that have already been distributed to journalists, etc.
Big difference to asking for unannounced and unreleased products.
Samsung's lawyers have some mighty big balls to make that kind of a gamble. Frankly, I think it has less than no chance of the Judge granting it.
Why is it a gamble? Worst case scenario Samsung is told no and they are right where they are today. It's not like lawyer fees matter in this kind of case. Both companies make enough money and have enough at stake to not worry about the cost. This seems like a low risk move with potentially large upsides. (Obligatory: IANAL)
They make themselves look silly/incompetent/time wasters in front of the judge. Even if you are not a lawyer, you probably realize you should not piss off a judge.
Really? Why? Do judges talk to each other about what companies are time-wasters and base their judgments on related smalltalk? If not (and I assume the answer is no, despite my relative lack of legal knowledge), then what has Samsung or any other company to lose besides a few dollars?
