Samsung might not have tried to copy the iPhone(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Samsung might not have tried to copy the iPhone
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57527568-71/so-it-looks-like-samsung-might-not-have-tried-to-copy-the-iphone/
7 comments
>"They did based on what Apple and Samsung attorneys argued on the trial,"
Or did they based on what some over-bearing jury foreman argued, a man who wanted to prove a point with patents, and has a reasonable bias against Samsung? I think that's the point Groklaw are making. The more they dig in, the more it looks like this guy has and continues to have an agenda.
That said, how did the Samsung attorneys not weed this guy out pre-trial? That was a huge blunder.
Or did they based on what some over-bearing jury foreman argued, a man who wanted to prove a point with patents, and has a reasonable bias against Samsung? I think that's the point Groklaw are making. The more they dig in, the more it looks like this guy has and continues to have an agenda.
That said, how did the Samsung attorneys not weed this guy out pre-trial? That was a huge blunder.
It looks like he failed to provide relevant information during jury questioning.
That, and the lawyers from both sides have only limited time to investigate all of the candidates.
We can see clear bias now, after the fact. Samsung had to weed through a much larger haystack that featured much more obvious bias that they did catch.
That, and the lawyers from both sides have only limited time to investigate all of the candidates.
We can see clear bias now, after the fact. Samsung had to weed through a much larger haystack that featured much more obvious bias that they did catch.
I don't see how anyone can defend Samsung seriously. I'm sure there is minutiae in the case that could be disputed. However, in the light of evidence like the comparisons in this imgur album [http://imgur.com/a/by8Xq], saying that Samsung didn't copy the iPhone as well as the rest of Apple's trade dress seems silly.
Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress).
But trade dress protection is not intended to prevent intellectual dishonesty or protect intellectual property or any other notion of fairness between companies. It is there for a specific practical purpose: to protect consumers from confusion.
But Apple's branding is so effective and distinctive that confusing consumers about what is or isn't an Apple product would be quite difficult without straight up violating their trademarks. Look again at the gallery you linked to, and instead of asking "Did Samsung copy Apple?", ask yourself "Could a shopper looking for a smartphone in a store honestly confuse these two products?"
Also, the iPod connector? Nothing to do with the Galaxy S. That's probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones. The Galaxy S uses micro-USB.
But trade dress protection is not intended to prevent intellectual dishonesty or protect intellectual property or any other notion of fairness between companies. It is there for a specific practical purpose: to protect consumers from confusion.
But Apple's branding is so effective and distinctive that confusing consumers about what is or isn't an Apple product would be quite difficult without straight up violating their trademarks. Look again at the gallery you linked to, and instead of asking "Did Samsung copy Apple?", ask yourself "Could a shopper looking for a smartphone in a store honestly confuse these two products?"
Also, the iPod connector? Nothing to do with the Galaxy S. That's probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones. The Galaxy S uses micro-USB.
> Also, the iPod connector...probably just a Samsung iPod connector, for you know, iPods and iPhones.
That is the stock galaxy tab cable.
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1...
That is the stock galaxy tab cable.
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/ECC1...
Interesting. And I see that it is in fact not interchangeable with the iPod connector. Still, it's pretty hard to imagine someone mistaking a Galaxy Tab for an iPad because of the USB connector.
It all adds up. Any one thing is not going to cause 'someone mistaking a galaxy tab for an ipad', But when you put everything together, not even the lawyer for Samsung could distinguish the two.
My mom would totally be confused by all of those examples. My mom, like many (most?) people doesn't like to read labels. She sees the general look. That's why trade dress protection exists as distinct from trade mark protection.
I bet your mom also couldn't tell the difference between a Sharp TV or a Samsung TV if they didn't have the labels. I think your point is moot.
>>Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress).
You certainly have a very interesting definition for "progress."
You certainly have a very interesting definition for "progress."
No, I have a very mundane, standard definition of progress. One of the many negative effects of our society's pathological individualism is this idea that copying an idea is intrinsically immoral. In fact, copying is necessary to innovation and innovation is pointless without more copying.
Ever notice that basically all cars have 90% identical feature sets while only a small handful of special features differentiate any particular model from the rest of the market? How did that situation come about? Did God come down from heaven in 1970 with some stone tablets describing an AMC Pacer and declare "Here is the basic idea of the automobile. Now go forth and add superficial features to this design"?
Of course not. What happened was that manufacturers competed for many decades, incrementally adding new features. And when one manufacturer found a feature that succeeded in the market, other manufacturers copied it.
This is how technology advances: by building on past success.
Ever notice that basically all cars have 90% identical feature sets while only a small handful of special features differentiate any particular model from the rest of the market? How did that situation come about? Did God come down from heaven in 1970 with some stone tablets describing an AMC Pacer and declare "Here is the basic idea of the automobile. Now go forth and add superficial features to this design"?
Of course not. What happened was that manufacturers competed for many decades, incrementally adding new features. And when one manufacturer found a feature that succeeded in the market, other manufacturers copied it.
This is how technology advances: by building on past success.
I think you're a bit confused. There's a difference between copying and imitation. For example, all cars may have driver seats, but no two driver seats are identical. They all differ in material, shape, color, comfort, adjustability (or even adjusting mechanism)...
What does not lead to progress is imitation, where the feature in question is copied to be completely identical without any incremental improvements or adjustments for context.
What does not lead to progress is imitation, where the feature in question is copied to be completely identical without any incremental improvements or adjustments for context.
Well, Samsung's products aren't even close to identical to Apple's, so there you have it.
Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. That's what trade dress protection should prevent.
> Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper.
Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.
Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.
>Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do.
I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product.
>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper.
On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products?
>That's what trade dress protection should prevent.
That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.
I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product.
>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper.
On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products?
>That's what trade dress protection should prevent.
That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.
>>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper.
>On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products?
I'm sure there's something more authoritative:
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
(Random video of this)
http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112
Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
I'm sure there's something more authoritative:
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
(Random video of this)
http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112
Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
> I'm sure there's something more authoritative:
> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople.
> I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.
> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople.
> I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.
It's a real shame that this theory is proposed over and over again.
It simultaneously puts the iPhone buying public down as ill-informed shopping sheep and elevates those that go in intending to buy an Android phone from the get-go.
I personally think better of most people. They buy phones for a variety of reasons, trickery by nefarious phone store salesmen, taking advantage of poor victimized and gullible iPhone buyers is probably very low on the list.
It simultaneously puts the iPhone buying public down as ill-informed shopping sheep and elevates those that go in intending to buy an Android phone from the get-go.
I personally think better of most people. They buy phones for a variety of reasons, trickery by nefarious phone store salesmen, taking advantage of poor victimized and gullible iPhone buyers is probably very low on the list.
This argument only makes sense if you're trying to say that all Android phones violate the iPhone trade dress. Since they clearly don't, and the effect you posit exists (which I don't argue), you're simply wrong by construction, no?
Well thank goodness that imgur albums can't be submitted as evidence in court. I'm curious about a number of those images- when did Samsung ever use the Apple dock connector (or something that looks like it) on their phones? When did they copy and paste an iOS screenshot onto their phone?
That's the Galaxy Tab 30-pin dock connector, and you can see it compared to Apple's in the third slide of this iFixit teardown:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Tab+Teardown/4...
Interesting, thanks. This is why the imgur album really isn't very useful- there's no context/citations.
It's based on a 30-pin PDMI connector standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI) but modified by Samsung to be used on the Galaxy Tab
I'm getting a 404.
Considering the pictures start with 1) app icons 2) app menu which well... just makes sense the way it's done - wall of icons design was around forever (win ce phones at least) 3) comparing google maps to google maps - it's not a great way to prove anything.
(the other pictures of external design are pretty similar though, no disagreement there)
(the other pictures of external design are pretty similar though, no disagreement there)
> wall of icons design was around forever
Well and imgur album is hardly a credible source. Is there any context for that?
Edit: there is. That was not a Samsung store but a Euronics one in Italy. Samsung had nothing to do with decorating the store.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_featu...
Edit: there is. That was not a Samsung store but a Euronics one in Italy. Samsung had nothing to do with decorating the store.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_featu...
> Considering the pictures start with 1) app icons
Not normal icons. Look at the red arrows: They point to the icons of Safari and the Apple Store. Which makes no sense in a Samsung store.
Not normal icons. Look at the red arrows: They point to the icons of Safari and the Apple Store. Which makes no sense in a Samsung store.
This mistake was done by a store called Euronics in Italy. Samsung had no part in the design of this wall and it is the store's lack of understanding that should be in question, not Samsung's.[http://bit.ly/PP9V3M]
[deleted]
There are many ways in which you can implement a grid of icons without exactly copying Apple's style. So why are there exactly 4x4 icons you can move left and right, above a bar with 4 fixed icons?
Same for Google Maps: why is the search field above the maps gray, rounded, and has a light gray x inside a circle to clear? This is not an arbitrary search field. This is not a typical "Google Maps" search field. There are millions of different styles of search fields, why take exactly the same search field as on the iPhone?
Same for Google Maps: why is the search field above the maps gray, rounded, and has a light gray x inside a circle to clear? This is not an arbitrary search field. This is not a typical "Google Maps" search field. There are millions of different styles of search fields, why take exactly the same search field as on the iPhone?
> So why are there exactly 4x4 icons you can move left and right, above a bar with 4 fixed icons?
Because the screen is a certain size and icons need to be big enough and small enough, up-down scrolling would be less ergonomic (longer swipes to switch pages), and there are a few features you always want access to, respectively.
How else would you do it?
As for the maps picture, I have a feeling that's faked, or that it's Google's mapping app, in which case consistent interface would be downright expected.
Because the screen is a certain size and icons need to be big enough and small enough, up-down scrolling would be less ergonomic (longer swipes to switch pages), and there are a few features you always want access to, respectively.
How else would you do it?
As for the maps picture, I have a feeling that's faked, or that it's Google's mapping app, in which case consistent interface would be downright expected.
From what I remember of that image, it was a Photoshop job where the exact same screen was found in Apple's marketing materials, but it was posted on Samsung's official website for the device for a period of time.
As far as I know, maps come from the google apps package which is not customised by Samsung (it gets updated from the market). Is that not right? Also it looks very different from the version I have now, so it's strange in general. I've never seen rounded corners on a text field.
(see this for example: http://www.gadgetnutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/map.jpg - not similar to what's in the posted gallery)
(see this for example: http://www.gadgetnutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/map.jpg - not similar to what's in the posted gallery)
The point of the 1. picture is that there are iOS App Store and Safari icons which you obviously won't find on Samsung device.
That was not a Samsung store but a Euronics one in Italy. Samsung had nothing to do with decorating the store.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_featu...
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_featu...
I guess the argument in the article is that someone at Samsung said to make something like the iPhone and did not specifically say to copy it. But to me if someone told me to "make something like X" I would probably copy it closely. This argument in the article makes no sense to me. I agree with you that the photos you linked to show exact copies of software and hardware.
Is the maps pic real or faked? I doubt the Android one looks anything close to the iPhone one, let alone a pixel perfect clone that looks copy pasted.
http://i.imgur.com/npHlR.gif
http://i.imgur.com/npHlR.gif
They are both displaying google maps, so it is not that surprising that both look similar. But is is a severe blow against the assumption of honesty of the person who created the images.
Yeah, that one's faked.
http://imgur.com/xuRTN
http://imgur.com/xuRTN
Isn't that the Maps website? The Native app doesn't (and didn't, ever) look like that.
Also submitted to evidence was an internal Samsung document which reviews Samsung's way vs Apple's way, and it made quite a compelling case that Samsung put forth significant effort in copying Apple's form and function.
I'm sure much of the "evidence" can be debunked in such a way as this article has, but taken as a whole I think Apple's case was convincing.
If you want to see other good examples of wholesale copying, go to a brick & mortar computer store (such as the new Microsoft Store) and view how all of the PC laptops have island key keyboards, aluminium or similar metal casings, cameras on top, drop hinges, and massive button-less touchpads.
I'm sure much of the "evidence" can be debunked in such a way as this article has, but taken as a whole I think Apple's case was convincing.
If you want to see other good examples of wholesale copying, go to a brick & mortar computer store (such as the new Microsoft Store) and view how all of the PC laptops have island key keyboards, aluminium or similar metal casings, cameras on top, drop hinges, and massive button-less touchpads.
Do you have a link to this internal document?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227284/samsungs-directions...
Particularly interesting is the last slide, #126, which includes in its Directions For Improvement "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design"
Particularly interesting is the last slide, #126, which includes in its Directions For Improvement "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design"
Proof of copying is an instruction to differentiate the design so it doesn't seem like they're copying?
I really don't understand criticism of the Samsung document, and I say this as somebody who currently owns an iPhone 4S - and my previous phone was an iPhone 3G. I also own a Samsung television and home theatre system, and plan on buying a Macbook Pro at the end of the year. I like to think I'm pretty unbiased in this matter as I've spent equal amounts of money on products from both companies, at the same time, and I'm happy with all my purchases.
From my cursory review of the document, all I can see it doing is compare the user experience between the two products. To me it's the difference between a clean-room reverse engineering exercise to build a competing product (implement, compare, revise) vs. a cloning manual (nowhere in that document does it instruct Samsung hardware/software engineers to copy Apple's form and function, it simply highlights areas of improvement; there are areas where I'm sure they concluded Samsung's implementation was better but they didn't write "hey guys we're busy cloning here, stop innovating!").
Look at #114 for example, which describes how Apple's phone has an animation when deleting notes. They don't write "we need an animation when deleting notes" (which would be copying). They identify the purpose of the animation ("fun factor") and recommend introducing some kind of "fun factor" in their own product, and leave details to designers to independently arrive at.
In fact, I recommend reading the very last paragraph in that document: "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design." This is no more sinister than making car wheels round.
Now you could argue that Samsung was just very clever about the way they went and copied things, but there's no concrete evidence of this theory of intent that I've seen presented.
As a matter of practicality, are you honestly telling me if you manufactured [cars, fridges, stoves, watches, laptops, televisions, software, ...] you wouldn't look at your competitor's [cars, fridges, ...] to make sure your design didn't miss anything obvious?
After the first reviews of your new product come in criticizing basic design flaws and viewing it as a "step backwards from competitor A", are you seriously telling me you'd be totally happy to stand there in front of your shareholders and say "Well yeah we could have done some competitive research but that'd be really unfair to our competitors they're actually pretty nice people and we don't want them to be mad!"?
Yes Apple probably spent a fair bit of money researching their UX and Samsung piggy-backed on their research. No more so than Apple piggy-backing on Xerox's work 30 years ago. And their payoff was they were first to market and have become the biggest company in US history. I'm struggling to see where the damage is, or the loss for consumers.
From my cursory review of the document, all I can see it doing is compare the user experience between the two products. To me it's the difference between a clean-room reverse engineering exercise to build a competing product (implement, compare, revise) vs. a cloning manual (nowhere in that document does it instruct Samsung hardware/software engineers to copy Apple's form and function, it simply highlights areas of improvement; there are areas where I'm sure they concluded Samsung's implementation was better but they didn't write "hey guys we're busy cloning here, stop innovating!").
Look at #114 for example, which describes how Apple's phone has an animation when deleting notes. They don't write "we need an animation when deleting notes" (which would be copying). They identify the purpose of the animation ("fun factor") and recommend introducing some kind of "fun factor" in their own product, and leave details to designers to independently arrive at.
In fact, I recommend reading the very last paragraph in that document: "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design." This is no more sinister than making car wheels round.
Now you could argue that Samsung was just very clever about the way they went and copied things, but there's no concrete evidence of this theory of intent that I've seen presented.
As a matter of practicality, are you honestly telling me if you manufactured [cars, fridges, stoves, watches, laptops, televisions, software, ...] you wouldn't look at your competitor's [cars, fridges, ...] to make sure your design didn't miss anything obvious?
After the first reviews of your new product come in criticizing basic design flaws and viewing it as a "step backwards from competitor A", are you seriously telling me you'd be totally happy to stand there in front of your shareholders and say "Well yeah we could have done some competitive research but that'd be really unfair to our competitors they're actually pretty nice people and we don't want them to be mad!"?
Yes Apple probably spent a fair bit of money researching their UX and Samsung piggy-backed on their research. No more so than Apple piggy-backing on Xerox's work 30 years ago. And their payoff was they were first to market and have become the biggest company in US history. I'm struggling to see where the damage is, or the loss for consumers.
"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Obviously it was their job to present the evidence in this way. Samsung's lawyers should have countered that with the full picture.
Obviously it was their job to present the evidence in this way. Samsung's lawyers should have countered that with the full picture.
I imagine the “rather shockingly” clause was a misplaced attempt at irony. I cannot think of any other reason the author would put that there.
I have no doubt that Samsung copied Apple, I just disagree with how the copying is being treated by the courts.
I don't see how intention matters in a patent dispute anyway.
CNET might not have tried hiring intelligent writers.
Groklaw is arguing that he cannot find the actual phrase that the media used over and over again in the documents but the jurors didn't decide on the case over that phrase (I'm not getting into the actual verdict or my personal opinion on it), nor they decided according to what the media said on those days.
They did based on what Apple and Samsung attorneys argued on the trial, and they both presented a lot of evidence to make their own case.
Whats more, even Groklaw admits "I didn't grab all the exhibits, simply because it got incredibly expensive. But I have almost all of them, certainly the ones that seemed most interesting".
Id admire that he is willing to sit through the paperwork but this is beyond pointless. If something was said that was not on the evidence records and somehow misrepresent the situation I'd assume that Samsung lawyers would jump on it. Same for Apple.
If Groklaw is making the case that the media did a poor job and started using and reusing a phrase that was not on the records, well, thats a problem for the media but not, as CNET suggests, a problem with the veredict itself.