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 sim

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."