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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] headShrinker|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joeri|15 years ago|reply
First, in general. Did apple invent the "all touch" category? No. The earliest all-touch smartphone with on-screen keyboard is IBM's Simon, from 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon . Did Apple then invent finger-friendly glossy UI's with capacitive touch screens? No. See for example the LG KE850 (prada phone), which was first demoed a year before the iphone: http://www.oopshi.nl/images/ke850-prada-oopshi-nl.jpg . Note that LG threatened to sue Apple for copying the prada phone's design: http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/
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.
Apple isn't suing for the general UI design, because they learned early on that it isn't protected when they tried the same thing to protect the mac interface (which they themselves copied from Xerox): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... . Instead they're suing for the distinctive design of the icons on the iphone. And, well, I don't think they're copied. Inspired by, yes, but direct copies they are not: http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4dadf745ccd1d5aa3f1... .
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.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carussell|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bad_user|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Peaker|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilban|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shareme|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tikna|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] podperson|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggoodale|15 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] hnsmurf|15 years ago|reply
Turn any of them sideways though and the iPhone still looks better. This picture does a good job of showing that:
http://iphonehelp.in/content/uploads/2010/06/iphone-4-vs-gal...
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roel_v|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhughes|15 years ago|reply
I wanted a Samsung SGH-M100 so bad but there were rumours the battery would vet hot, swell up and possibly explode.
[+] [-] yardie|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ruudjah|15 years ago|reply
The only group really benefitting are the lawyers and their surrounding workers. Not our innovating tech industry.
[+] [-] Steko|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] maeon3|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] patrickaljord|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]