The Surprises In the Latest Apple V. Samsung Court Documents

Nerdfest writes "The lawyers behind the upcoming Apple v. Samsung trial have been hard at work filing docket after docket as their court battle looms closer, and many of those dockets have just been released to the public. We're now seeing a lot of previously secret information about the early days of iPhone and iPad R&D, and what's happened behind closed doors at both Apple and Samsung. Surprises include the iPhone design being 'inspired' by Sony product ideas, and that Samsung was warned that it was copying Apple."

Apple Copies

[moniker127]

Guys- is it ever any surprise that apple copies a design? They design well, but that is because all of their work is second generation. They take a concept then make it shiny, and sell it. They don't make concepts. Hell- the apple 2 was literally a XEROX!

Re:Surprises?

[Anonymous Coward]

4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

Or that LG didn't with their Prada [wikipedia.org], which clearly pioneered the "iPhone type" smartphone, before Apple. But then Apple is one of the most litigation-happy tech companies.

Biased Wired.com article

[punit_r]

The Wired.com article is totally biased towards Apple.

An example is the SONY concept phone released in 2006.
http://www.cellphonebeat.com/sony-ericssons-cybershot-concept-phone.html [cellphonebeat.com]

Going by Apple's logic, their version of "inspiration" is removing the slider from the SONY concept phone and making the front all touch (removing the silver buttons). With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010. I fail to see why does Apple have double standards when treating with the issue when Samsung / Motorola and HTC are concerned. (rather all popular Android manufacturers)

The industry was already gravitating towards touch screen phones in 2007. The technology was not ready earlier in terms of CPU power, price/performance ratio and OS maturity for touch only phones to be popular mainstream phones. Apple was the first to released a polished product, granted. But, Apple is behaving as if it owns all rights to a touch screen phone / tablet, which I find ridiculous.

Re:Surprises?

[larry bagina]

3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

They didn't see it. Apple *read* (in an interview) about a prototype Sony was working on and then did a mock-up based on the description. Sort of a "What would Sony do?" or "How would Sony do it?"

Re:Biased Wired.com article

[punit_r]

With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010

This is what I claim. I never claimed that the first iPhone of 2007 was a copy of the SONY concept phone.

I am not even sure that the SONY concept phone is actually dated 2006. But, that is not the point. The basic point is the industry was anyways gravitating towards touch enabled phones. There had been many PDA phones (with no keyboard) before the first ever iPhone. So, at best Apple can only claim to have accelerated the era or touchscreen phones.

No company ever claimed sole ownership to qwerty / flip / candybar / slider phones by blocking products of competitors in the market. There could have been reasonable royalty arrangements where the customer choice was not limited. Apple's stance is that a rounded rectangular object with a glass top is owned by them. That is the difference.

Apple is the white looter

[0xdeadbeef]

Apple is "inspired" by other designs, while Samsung "copies". Gotta love that fanboy doublespeak.

Re:Surprises?

[fredprado]

There is nothing 100% original in this universe. Actually there is nothing 10% original to tell the truth.

Re:Surprises?

[drinkypoo]

Maybe Sony didn't patent their design because they are adult enough

Uh no, because we're talking about Sony here. Remember Betamax? Memory stick? Minidisc? Rootkits?

Re:Surprises?

[Belial6]

And THAT is the first, biggest problem with "IP".

Re:Apple Copies

[Belial6]

That is how Apple fanboys describe things. If Apple has it and someone else doesn't, it is the key defining feature that makes it the greatest "innovation" ever, and completely original. If someone else has it and Apple doesn't, it is a minor, inconsequential part that could hardly be called a feature. In this thread, it is suggested that Samsung copied Apple, even though iPhone doesn't do widgets. Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

Re:Apple Copies

[moniker127]

I'm an engineer myself. I'm not going to make light of the process of making an idea function. But the simple truth is- Xerox DID make it work. The palo alto research center had an entire network of what were essentially modern computers in 1979. They created the GUI, ethernet, network printers, object oriented programming, bitmaps, and many other important advances. Have whatever opinion you want, but we're arguing over historical fact here.

Re:Surprises?

[sjames]

The Prada came out only 4 months before the iPhone

Meaning that we must conclude either that the iPhone is a copy of the Prada OR we must conceed tha tsimiolar goals and same technology lead to naturally similar designs.

Either way, Apple is left with no justification of their lawsuits or theie yelling "Mine Mine Mine!" Daffy Duck like.

Re:Surprises?

[sjames]

You see no relation whatsoever to Apple's product bearing a remarkable (and I'm sure Apple will claim, harmless) resemblance to an earlier LG product and Samsung's product bearing a resemblance to Apples (Which Samsung claims is harmless)?

You can see no reason at all that might weaken Apples claims in the slightest?

And, I will note that a game only exists if there are players. If I hate the game, I fully reserve the right to hate the player for keeping it alive.

As for timing, a patent claim is invalidated by prior art. It does matter if a design existed elsewhere before the patent was filed.

The sdesigns we are seeing ALL reflect images of future technology dating back to the 1960s. None of them have the right to lay claim on the design as far as I can see. The only reason we didn't see these designs in products in the '60s is that we had to wait for the general state of technology to catch up with the vision.