4 ms·

>Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that th

>Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju... Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no. > Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer. ever heard of LG Prada?

dkonofalski 8y ago
>plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards. Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  It doesn't matter whether Samsung released them or not -- the legal standard required to avoid infringement is evidence that Samsung had knowledge or sought similar designs before Apple's public release. Samsung's internal document on competitive product evaluation likewise is just valid as their R&D department's document on on-going research. I'm willing to bet that at least half a dozen other phone makers considered those designs before Apple released theirs. Again, LG Prada who came out with their own months before Apple was one such example. Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute. > that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit. > Again, it's not just about the individual components. This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."

dkonofalski 8y ago

>plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards. Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.

tooltalk 8y ago
It doesn't matter whether Samsung released them or not -- the legal standard required to avoid infringement is evidence that Samsung had knowledge or sought similar designs before Apple's public release. Samsung's internal document on competitive product evaluation likewise is just valid as their R&D department's document on on-going research. I'm willing to bet that at least half a dozen other phone makers considered those designs before Apple released theirs. Again, LG Prada who came out with their own months before Apple was one such example. Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute. > that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit. > Again, it's not just about the individual components. This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."