7 ms·

Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

44 points by pnayak 14y ago

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Not good when your own designers are saying "too bad it looks like an iPhone". The Sony concept is interesting; it would be interesting to do a courtroom test (can the lawyers differentiate when the judge holds them up). I don't think it would e a problem with the original iPhone, but the iPhone 4 might be. Of course, Sony never created that product.
- amartya916 14y ago
  I also read that Best Buy had people returning the Galaxy Tab because they had originally thought that it was the iPad. Link: http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-give-reporters-plenty-to-chew-on/ http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-... Now, of course one can say that the consumer should have paid more attention to the branding, but I think that's missing the point. It seems that for a few (?) people the Galaxy tab looked similar enough to the iPad to cause confusion and that the big box retailer conveyed the message to Samsung.
  - jsnell 14y ago
    That data point doesn't mean much. Many people who aren't into tech will just lump a whole category of devices together with the most prominent member of the group. I suspect it's impossible to design a tablet-like device with any commercial potential at all that someone won't confuse for an iPad. For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
    - amartya916 14y ago
      If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the fact that some products by being first-to-market or by popularity start to define a category of products. For example, vacuum cleaners in the UK are mostly called "Hoovers", or say "Coke" represents a cola soft drink etc. In those cases, people won't buy a product and return it. Although they refer to a vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", they go in knowing fully well that they are buying a product that does what a "Hoover" does, i.e. pick up dust. Here people didn't go in wanting an iPad-esque product and buying a product in the same category, but rather they mistook it to be the iPad. Pardon me if this seems a little circuitous, having trouble with words today :)
- falling 14y ago
  From the fine article: “An Apple industrial designer, Shin Nishibori, then mocked up the design, even using Sony’s logo on the back of the CAD drawing.” Of course this won’t stop the internet from believing that Apple copied the iPhone design from Sony, but I’ll try to make this my last comment on it.
shrikant 14y ago
The five 'reveals': 1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand 2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.” 3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012. 4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out" 5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.
justinschuh 14y ago
Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.
- spiralpolitik 14y ago
  FRAND patents of the like Samsung are complaining about are usually patents on the individual component chip. Manufacturer of said chipset license the patent when they make the chipset then sell the chipset to downstream integrators like Apple. Given the cost of the chipset is far cheaper than the overall cost of the device 1c per chip is reasonable, especially when said chipset may require the licensing of hundreds of other patents as well and devices requiring several chipsets. If Samsung wins here they will effectively kill FRAND licensing and costs will increase significantly as everybody will now want $25 per device for their patents. As part of the standards process Samsung has committed to licensing these patterns under Fair, Reasonably and Non-Discrimartory terms, which means they can't ask Apple for a different rate than they give say Motorola or HTC. Because Apple's Design patents are not FRAND they are under no obligation to give anything to Samsung. Because Samsung's patents are standards essential you can't build a cellphone without needing them (hence the FRAND licensing), while its certainly possible to build a cellphone that doesn't violate Apple's design patents (RIM, Nokia et al don't seem to be getting sued for example). This doesn't mean that Apple is right for suing companies for violating them, but what Samsung is doing is far far worse.
  - patrickaljord 14y ago
    So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.
KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago
Article missed the biggest kicker, which is that the galaxy designs pre-date the iphone: http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg
falling 14y ago
It’s really depressing that for the first time we can have a glimpse into Apple’s design process (which, whether you like the company or not, is unarguably interesting) and all HN can talk about is petty score counts.
jemfinch 14y ago
Is "revelation" really too tough a word for the authors of this article or the readers of Wired? I really don't appreciate this linguistic trend in the tech community to turn verbs into nouns in a non-standard, ad hoc way when perfectly fine nouns exist. I (unfortunately) hear it with "ask" fairly frequently at work, and it makes me feel like Jules from Pulp Fiction ("Use 'ask' as a noun again, I dare you...") Can anyone shed some linguistic light on this trend?
- jacobolus 14y ago
  Pretty sure the “reveal” here is supposed to be this kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reveal_(arts_and_showbusiness) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reveal_(arts_and_showbusiness) Which is slightly different from “revelation”, though I agree with you that “revelation” is better word in this context.
nirvana 14y ago
Hey Falling. You've been hellbanned. Your comments are not appearing to anyone except those who have "turn dead comments on". You may have been hellbanned for daring to defend Apple on HN, who knows since they never say, but they are really active at censoring people for having diverse opinions. Just thought I'd share this in case you're still reading the thread... I can't even reply to your hellbanned comments alas.
- tl 14y ago
  Looking at the comments, his last non-dead comment was 22 days ago. I don't see anything particular worthy of a ban though.
- weaksauce 14y ago
  Maybe it was for another offense? Something like appearing like a voting bot? Maybe falling wrote a script that was scraping the site too quickly? I guess only pg or rtm know for sure.
- nolok 14y ago
  Banned for defending apple on hackernews ? Are you actually believing what you say ? If anything, I would say this place is a little too full of apple fanboys, not the other way around. Get a grip on reality.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

44 points by pnayak 14y ago

Not good when your own designers are saying "too bad it looks like an iPhone". The Sony concept is interesting; it would be interesting to do a courtroom test (can the lawyers differentiate when the judge holds them up). I don't think it would e a problem with the original iPhone, but the iPhone 4 might be. Of course, Sony never created that product.

amartya916 14y ago
I also read that Best Buy had people returning the Galaxy Tab because they had originally thought that it was the iPad. Link: http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-give-reporters-plenty-to-chew-on/ http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-... Now, of course one can say that the consumer should have paid more attention to the branding, but I think that's missing the point. It seems that for a few (?) people the Galaxy tab looked similar enough to the iPad to cause confusion and that the big box retailer conveyed the message to Samsung.
- jsnell 14y ago
  That data point doesn't mean much. Many people who aren't into tech will just lump a whole category of devices together with the most prominent member of the group. I suspect it's impossible to design a tablet-like device with any commercial potential at all that someone won't confuse for an iPad. For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
  - amartya916 14y ago
    If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the fact that some products by being first-to-market or by popularity start to define a category of products. For example, vacuum cleaners in the UK are mostly called "Hoovers", or say "Coke" represents a cola soft drink etc. In those cases, people won't buy a product and return it. Although they refer to a vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", they go in knowing fully well that they are buying a product that does what a "Hoover" does, i.e. pick up dust. Here people didn't go in wanting an iPad-esque product and buying a product in the same category, but rather they mistook it to be the iPad. Pardon me if this seems a little circuitous, having trouble with words today :)
falling 14y ago
From the fine article: “An Apple industrial designer, Shin Nishibori, then mocked up the design, even using Sony’s logo on the back of the CAD drawing.” Of course this won’t stop the internet from believing that Apple copied the iPhone design from Sony, but I’ll try to make this my last comment on it.

shrikant 14y ago

The five 'reveals': 1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand 2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.” 3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012. 4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out" 5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.

justinschuh 14y ago

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.

spiralpolitik 14y ago
FRAND patents of the like Samsung are complaining about are usually patents on the individual component chip. Manufacturer of said chipset license the patent when they make the chipset then sell the chipset to downstream integrators like Apple. Given the cost of the chipset is far cheaper than the overall cost of the device 1c per chip is reasonable, especially when said chipset may require the licensing of hundreds of other patents as well and devices requiring several chipsets. If Samsung wins here they will effectively kill FRAND licensing and costs will increase significantly as everybody will now want $25 per device for their patents. As part of the standards process Samsung has committed to licensing these patterns under Fair, Reasonably and Non-Discrimartory terms, which means they can't ask Apple for a different rate than they give say Motorola or HTC. Because Apple's Design patents are not FRAND they are under no obligation to give anything to Samsung. Because Samsung's patents are standards essential you can't build a cellphone without needing them (hence the FRAND licensing), while its certainly possible to build a cellphone that doesn't violate Apple's design patents (RIM, Nokia et al don't seem to be getting sued for example). This doesn't mean that Apple is right for suing companies for violating them, but what Samsung is doing is far far worse.
- patrickaljord 14y ago
  So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.

KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago

Article missed the biggest kicker, which is that the galaxy designs pre-date the iphone: http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg

falling 14y ago

It’s really depressing that for the first time we can have a glimpse into Apple’s design process (which, whether you like the company or not, is unarguably interesting) and all HN can talk about is petty score counts.

jemfinch 14y ago

Is "revelation" really too tough a word for the authors of this article or the readers of Wired? I really don't appreciate this linguistic trend in the tech community to turn verbs into nouns in a non-standard, ad hoc way when perfectly fine nouns exist. I (unfortunately) hear it with "ask" fairly frequently at work, and it makes me feel like Jules from Pulp Fiction ("Use 'ask' as a noun again, I dare you...") Can anyone shed some linguistic light on this trend?

jacobolus 14y ago
Pretty sure the “reveal” here is supposed to be this kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reveal_(arts_and_showbusiness) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reveal_(arts_and_showbusiness) Which is slightly different from “revelation”, though I agree with you that “revelation” is better word in this context.

nirvana 14y ago

Hey Falling. You've been hellbanned. Your comments are not appearing to anyone except those who have "turn dead comments on". You may have been hellbanned for daring to defend Apple on HN, who knows since they never say, but they are really active at censoring people for having diverse opinions. Just thought I'd share this in case you're still reading the thread... I can't even reply to your hellbanned comments alas.

tl 14y ago
Looking at the comments, his last non-dead comment was 22 days ago. I don't see anything particular worthy of a ban though.
weaksauce 14y ago
Maybe it was for another offense? Something like appearing like a voting bot? Maybe falling wrote a script that was scraping the site too quickly? I guess only pg or rtm know for sure.
nolok 14y ago
Banned for defending apple on hackernews ? Are you actually believing what you say ? If anything, I would say this place is a little too full of apple fanboys, not the other way around. Get a grip on reality.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]