Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Patents The Courts Apple

The Surprises In the Latest Apple V. Samsung Court Documents 257

Posted by samzenpus
from the have-a-read dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Surprises In the Latest Apple V. Samsung Court Documents

Comments Filter:
  • by jkrise (535370) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @10:32AM (#40807671) Journal

    Microsoft moves to seal their agreement with Samsung for Android licenses.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510 [groklaw.net]

    It would be nice to get a close view of the MS-Samsung deal.... it would be even more interesting if it is found that Microsoft PAID money to Samsung rather than the other way round.

    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @10:35AM (#40807693)

      I thought the patents in question had actually been exposed because of the mistakes Microsoft made during the B&N extortion (and were extremely weak, unlikely to survive any patent re-evaluation).

      • They might be part of the Android licensing deal where MS demanded royalties or licensing deals from the phone manufacturers. At the time most of them were dropping WinMo in favor of Android. My understanding was the deal was that they made WP7 phones and paid a fee for every Android phone or MS would go after them for patents. Motorola was the one that didn't agree and there is a MS-Motorola lawsuit.
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      I would think it to be pretty expected that Samsung is/was getting a discount on their WP phones by them paying for android licensing, though the moneyflow would probably still be from samsung to MS.

    • by Xest (935314)

      It's quite possible that it's tied in to some kind of WP7 deal, such that Microsoft will ignore Android patents for Samsung, providing Samsung continues to manufacture WP7 phones, and may have WP7 license fees waved or some such thing.

      Samsung's Windows Phones probably make them so little money that it wouldn't even be worth doing relative to the massive success of their Android phones unless there was some kind of incentive. Their time would probably be better spent just focussing 100% on Android for their

  • by garcia (6573) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @10:34AM (#40807681) Homepage

    1. Most of what are shown here are not surprises, they are iterative design concepts.

    2. A kickstand is not a surprise; it seems logical.

    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.

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

    5. Another surprise is that this story continues to gain stories on Slashdot and other sites. It's a little overdone. Let us know when something of substance appears that is actually interesting.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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.

      • by Deorus (811828)

        The Prada came out only 4 months before the iPhone, furthermore that tells you nothing about previous research or patent applications. If Apple had iPad prototypes as early as 2004, imagine when they started to think about and patent iPhone designs, especially considering that the first iPhone concept is from 1983 (totally different from what it is now, but serves to show just how long Apple has been thinking about the iPhone)...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sjames (1099)

          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? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Deorus (811828) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @04:38PM (#40810635)

            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.

            I don't see how the former could be feasible considering the timeframe. Regarding the latter, don't blame the players, blame the game.

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

            They aren't suing LG as far as I know, so I don't see the relation, and there's strong evidence pointing to Samsung having actually and knowingly copied Apple's designs. Plus as I mention what matters are the dates in which patents are filed, not the time products come out. Once you file an application for a patent you can pretty much assume that it's public knowledge.

            • Re:Surprises? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by sjames (1099) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @05:06PM (#40810951) Homepage

              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.

              • by Deorus (811828)

                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)?

                No, because it would be unfeasible for Apple to copy LG in such a short amount of time, not to mention that the Prada never received a lot of attention thus making it even less reasonable for Apple to copy it specifically. Samsung, in the other hand, changed the design of

                • Re:Surprises? (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by Smauler (915644) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @08:54PM (#40813107)

                  You are not hating Apple because of how they do business, you are hating Apple because unlike others they are open about it, you are hating Apple because they're honest.

                  This is either a fanboy or a shill comment. If you seriously believe it's neither, you're the former.

                  Seriously, Apple have been abusing patent law for their gain for a while now. You can claim patent law is broken (which it is), and you can claim that their patents are legally valid (which at least some of them are, others are questionable), and you can claim all their competitors are doing the same (which they are, some less aggressively though). However, claiming Apple are being honest and not engaging in anti-competitive patent hoarding and suing is flat out false. Yes, lots of other companies do the same, some are worse, some are better.

                • not to mention that the Prada never received a lot of attention thus making it even less reasonable for Apple to copy it specifically

                  LG won design awards for the Prada in 2006. The iPhone came out in 2007.

                  Unless you can demonstrate that LG patented that design first, then no, I do not see how that would be of relevance.

                  You don't need a prior patent to invalidate another patent, you only need prior art. It only needs to be demonstrated that LG designed their phone first, not patented the design.

                  • by Deorus (811828)

                    LG won design awards for the Prada in 2006. The iPhone came out in 2007.

                    Source?

                    You don't need a prior patent to invalidate another patent, you only need prior art. It only needs to be demonstrated that LG designed their phone first, not patented the design.

                    Then LG would have to come out and make that prior art claim, which strangely enough they haven't, at least not legally...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by larry bagina (561269)

      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:Surprises? (Score:5, Informative)

        by punit_r (1080185) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @11:30AM (#40808083)

        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?"

        Cant find an accurate date on these SONY phones (range 2006 to 2010), but the iPhone 4 looks extremely close to these.
        http://www.cellphonebeat.com/sony-ericssons-cybershot-concept-phone.html [cellphonebeat.com]
        http://moblog.net/view/273678/new-sony-ericsson-concept-phone [moblog.net]
        And multiple phones in these pages (plus/minus a few pages)
        http://www.concept-phones.com/tag/sony-ericsson-concept-phone/page/6/ [concept-phones.com]

        It does not matter whether SONY actually released the particular product in the market or not. The bottom line is Apple's claim that they have come up with an "entirely original" idea that never existed before does not hold water. If anyone is going to design a new touch screen only phone / tablet, there is not much one can do. They cant Patent a rounded rectangle and assert it to prevent competition in the market and escape the microscopic examination of others.

        Apple keeps parading the image of before / after iPhone cellphones, where it claims that all cellphones before iPhone were flip / qwerty and candybar and touchscreens did not exist at all (which is a lie). There were many PDA phones before the first ever iPhone in 2007. Even without the iPhone touchscreen phones would have come in the market.
        http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p910-846.php [gsmarena.com] (one cant argue that size of this phone would have never shrunk with time and with advances in technology)

    • 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.

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

      Maybe Sony didn't patent their design because they are adult enough to realize the veracity of claim number 3? Don't try to force through a patent when what you do is obvious and not novel...

      • Re:Surprises? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:35PM (#40808523) Homepage Journal

        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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tooyoung (853621) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @11:29AM (#40808073)

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

      Not really a surprise if you read the Samsung filing. Apple didn't copy a design that they saw from Sony. An interview with a Sony designer described a concept for a phone that fit in the hand, had rounded corners, and a lack of buttons on the front of the device. Based on this, an Apple designer created a concept design of what this Sony phone would look like. Just to be clear - the screenshots that people will be posting links to in comments during the coming months are screen shots created by Apple. These are not designs that Sony created, although many posters will have that misunderstanding.

      It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design.

      • Re:Surprises? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:23PM (#40808877) Homepage

        It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design

        Very much this. This one paragraph distills the annoyance I have with a number of vocal Slashdotters who have tried to oversimplify their hate of Apple into a meme of rounded rectangular corners. Come on folks, even the most VBasic-crippled, 10E6 numbered poster can figure out the logical constructs of an AND statement....

        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          The point is that Apple ripped off the flat front AND the lack of buttons AND the big touchscreen AND the grid of icons AND slide to unlock AND rounded corners AND the rest of it from other people too. The iPhone looks very much like the LG Prada, and the iPad looks very much like a number of tablet-like photo frames that Samsung made. Many of Apple's designs looks very much like Braun designs from the 70s and 80s.

          There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning round and saying that Samsung

      • Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design.

        Do you have any link to documents that back that up?
        here (pdf) [groklaw.net] is the actual Apple filing. Reading it tells us that, although Apple is attempting to imply what you are saying, the actual court case comes down to their design patents. i.e. "rectangle with rounded corners" not the combination of behavioural elements from the iPhone/iPad as you are claiming.

        As people have noted here many times, there are plenty of smart phones created before the advent of the iPhone with many of the same elements that t

    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

      Let us know when something of substance appears that is actually interesting.

      Ok. Should we contact you by email or phone?

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

      no, what's a surprise is that apple received a patent their design.

    • 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.

      To state the obvious: but only Apple is hypocritical enough to sue over it, especially having done so itself.

  • Dockets vs. Briefs (Score:3, Informative)

    by SniperJoe (1984152) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @10:41AM (#40807745)
    I hate to be pedantic, but you don't file a docket. The docket is the schedule / container for legal filings. Rather, I believe the proper term would be brief in this case. You can also file other things such as suits, claims and motions.
  • Apple Copies (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moniker127 (1290002)
    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!
    • Have you actually used/seen a Xerox system. I bet you hadn't as Xerox had great ideas however they still had a long way to go. What Apple paid for and got was use of the ideas. For example one Apple engineer struggled with overlapping windows and couldn't figure out how Xerox did it. Finally he implemented on how own. A year later, he was able to ask a Xerox engineer how they did it. It turns out that they didn't for the version they saw. They had ideas but Xerox didn't get it to work right and so pulle
      • "use of the ideas" = "copying the ideas" Apple copied the xerox concept, then made it shiny. That's what they do. I didn't say they did it illegally, not that people at PARC were bloody happy about having all of their work taken to the market without them.
        • Xerox had a GUI but built on their own systems with Mesa. Apple implemented their own version on their own hardware with assembly; however, Xerox's system was very much a prototype. A lot of things in the Mac was not done in Xerox's system. It wasn't just about "shiny". Overlapping windows, drag and drop are just two things Xerox did not do. Of course from your angle, Apple just copied Xerox. History and facts disagree with you.
          • Sure, apple made shiny, overlapping windows. Xerox didn't. Kudos to apple for improving upon an existing concept. Your point is?
            • Re:Apple Copies (Score:4, Interesting)

              by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:52PM (#40808645)
              My point is you can't tell the difference between concept (which was never released) and an actual working product. Computing history is filled with lots of vaporware and concepts that never made it. It takes a great deal of work to get something to work. But you don't want to give Apple any credit for implementing actual working systems. You would rather lump everything into "shiny" category than admit that Apple does engineering to get their products to market.
              • I'm not speaking ill of apple, I'm just calling it what it is. Apple doesn't come up with new concepts, it just improves upon existing ones. The problem with that is that innovation stagnates, and you're left with a 10-20 year period in which there is nothing but incremental upgrade because no one has any new ideas.
                • Calling implementing a working product the same as adding "shiny" does speak ill of Apple. It doesn't give them any credit for doing real work. I can come up with a holographic UI concept. I can never implement it. It's not shiny if someone actually makes a system work.
                  • Re:Apple Copies (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by moniker127 (1290002) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:26PM (#40808901)
                    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.
                    • Xerox made a basic concept work. They didn't make it complete. Again, I can prototype a holographic UI system. It will never actually work in real life. Could Xerox have made a working, selling product had their bosses realized what the potential PARC ideas had? Probably. But historical fact is that they did not.
                    • So you're saying that because apple worked on it, they didn't copy it? Wouldn't that basic line of logic make all patent suits immediately invalid?
                    • No you said anything Apple did to make something work was basically "shiny" and dismissing any real work they did to get a system from concept to working product. Minority Report has a concept of a holographic UI. Okay anyone who makes it work is only contributing to "shiny" according to you.

                      The concept of the Ethernet was developed by Metcalfe at PARC. Metcalfe left PARC to form 3Com which helped it make it a standard. But all 3Com did was to add "shiny" to it according to you.

                      First of all patents are

                    • http://www.pophistorydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1970s-xerox-alto-280.jpg [pophistorydig.com] This is a picture of the xerox alto, released in 1973. http://oldcomputers.net/pics/lisa2.jpg [oldcomputers.net] This is a picture of an apple lisa, released in 1983, 10 years later. I know, 10 years brought a LOT of progress, huh? You're such a clueless fanboy.
                    • What are you on about? They had working systems in "real life"; they didn't just imagine it all. You seem to think that real life is only the US consumer market.
                    • A picture of the Alto. Yes a picture of a demo model == full working system. Here's a picture of a holographic UI [weareorganizedchaos.com]. I'm sure a system exists today right? But please don't do any research [folklore.org] into the history of the two:

                      Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows - you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint portions of windows brought to the front. One Macintosh feature identical to a Smalltalk feature is selection-based modeless text editing with cut and paste, which was created by Larry Tesler for his Gypsy editor at PARC.

                      As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge

                      Or even read wikipedia

                      The following description is based primarily on the August 1976 Alto Hardware Manual by Xerox PARC. . . .The Alto was never a commercial product, although over two thousand were built. . . In December 1979, Apple Computer's co-founder Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC, where he was shown the Smalltalk-80 programming environment . . .integrated it first into the Lisa and then in the Macintosh, attracting several key researchers to work in his company. . . In 1980–1981, Xerox Altos were used by engineers at PARC and at the Xerox System Development Department to design the Xerox Star workstations.

                      Xerox had the concepts for several years before Apple. They never made it into a product. The Star was finally a product but not a standalone that the Lisa and the Mac was.

          • Re:Apple Copies (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Belial6 (794905) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:07PM (#40808753)
            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 (Score:4, Informative)

              by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:24PM (#40808889)

              I never called it the greatest innovation ever. I merely said Apple used ideas from Xerox; however, the Xerox concept was not complete. It was a prototype. Apple actually implemented a working product.

              Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

              And you missed the entire point. If you a using a GUI instead of a command line, things like overlapping windows and drag and drop are essential. Apple implemented these things in a shipping product. Xerox as a concept did not.

              • The problem with your line of reasoning is that Apple is suing people for using the basic concept, not for stealing Apple's code.

                You say the "secret sauce" worth protecting is the actual implementation, and yet that is not what Apple is claiming damages over.

                • No Apple is suing for two reasons: They believe that Samsung deliberately copied their design patents down to the packaging design. And they also believe others infringed (HTC, Motorola) on their functional patents. People can disagree whether these things are true but most here reduce both sets of claims down to single points.
              • Apple implemented these things in a shipping product. Xerox as a concept did not.

                Wrong. The Xerox Star was introduced to the market in 1981 years before Apple ever sold a computer with a WIMP GUI.

    • Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much sl

      • My understanding was that Xerox used their own language called Mesa which was object oriented. Also Apple got permissions from Xerox corporate to use the ideas for which they paid in Apple stock. The PARC guys thought it was a bad idea; however, Xerox was so focused on copiers that they never understood the potential of it and other things like Ethernet, the mouse, OO programming, etc.
      • by macs4all (973270)

        Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much slower hardware. Big differences.

        Cheers, -S

        Um, the CPU in the 128k Mac and the Lisa was the same 8 MHz MC68000. And the Lisa and Mac were both "programmed" in a combination of Smalltalk, Pascal, and 68k Assembler.

      • Aye I meant to say that the mac was a derivative of the work at PARC, not the apple 2.
        • Aye I meant to say that the mac was a derivative of the work at PARC

          Not really true... a few concepts came from Xerox, the mouse, pop up menus, and windows... sure... and that's about it... most of the good stuff was originally designed by the folks at Apple. Here's the truth, if you really care about truth and aren't just pilling on trolls.

          • A few concepts, huh? Xerox came up with the GUI, the mouse, bitmaps, wysiwyg text editors, laser printing, ethernet, and object oriented programming. You would call those unimportant little details?
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by macs4all (973270)

      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!

      Wow. Are we so far out in computing history that we don't remember the difference between an Apple ][ [digibarn.com] (designed in 1976 and first sold by Apple in 1977), and the Lisa [digibarn.com] (first designed by Apple in 1978 and first sold by Apple in 1981)?

      And oh, BTW, Apple didn't "copy Xerox" [obamapacman.com]. Apple was shown some technology that Xerox PARC was working on, then they started riffing on it, bringing many improvements. Then, Apple LICENSED the tech from Xerox.

      They stole NOTHING.

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        Well maybe the golden rectangle was appropriated, seeing as how it's a riff on the proportions of the Parthenon.
      • I didn't say they stole anything. How exactly is "riffing on" different from COPYING? I don't speak hippie.
      • I did mean to say the macintosh. I'm familiar with the difference. The macintosh they copied form Xerox's designs, the Apple 2 they got from people at the homebrew computer club. My bad.
      • What's with the mods on crack?

        Parent is correct about the history of the Apple 2 and Lisa.

      • by sjames (1099)

        They DID copy. Nobody claimed they did it without permission. However, there is a big difference between inventing something and copying with permission.

    • That is the difference between Apple and respectable companies.

      Sure Apple copied Sony as much as Samsung copied Apple. But Sony didn't sue, and sue, and sue, and sue.

  • by punit_r (1080185) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @10:58AM (#40807849)

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by macs4all (973270)

      The Wired.com article is totally biased towards Apple.

      An example is the SONY concept phone released in 2006.

      Do you REALLY think that Apple designed and built the iPhone in ONE YEAR?!?

      Well, I guess we can tell who's never worked on a REAL product design...

      • by Nerdfest (867930)

        The article does contain this:

        “In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by punit_r (1080185)

        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 / c

      • by punit_r (1080185)

        macs4all:
        Do you REALLY think that Apple designed and built the iPhone in ONE YEAR?!?

        Well, I guess we can tell who's never worked on a REAL product design...

        And if you had bothered to read TFA

        In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, a Sony designer discussed Sony designs for portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other excessive ornamentation, and fit in the hand .......

        According to Nishibori's testimony, his design changed the course of the iPhone project, and pointed it toward the iPhone of today.

        So, guess what, it was really ONE YEAR, based on a testimony of Apple's own designers. I believe there is no doubt that the Apple designer Nishibori has worked on a REAL product design.

    • Whoa! Rounded corners. Didn't Apple sue Samsung over that? Maybe the German court needs a copy of this picture.

  • by kilodelta (843627) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @11:07AM (#40807911) Homepage
    I have a Samsung SCH-R910 - in fact it does more than the iPhone believe it or not, straight out of the box. But the UI - it looks like the IOS. I find it interesting that they seem to be protesting that it physically looks like the Galaxy Tabs look like the iPad, but the UI is nearly identical on Android based platforms.
  • We've seen ALL of these devices on Star Trek: TNG. Devices with buttons, devices without buttons, rectangular devices, etc.

    Someone should make a smash-up video of all the hand-held computer devices shown in Star Trek:TNG, it would destroy a lot of design patents.

    • We've seen ALL of these devices on Star Trek: TNG. Devices with buttons, devices without buttons, rectangular devices, etc.

      Someone should make a smash-up video of all the hand-held computer devices shown in Star Trek:TNG, it would destroy a lot of design patents.

      I hate to break it to you but ST TNG is a fictional TV show. They used props made out of painted wood with some plastic pieces and a silkscreened "display" rather than an animated one. Any animation that you saw on screen would have been added later on in post production. They could have easily just used a solid grey rectangle and added everything onto the surface in post but that would have been a lot of work to since most prop PADDs only appeared either on desks in the background or briefly on screen with

      • by punit_r (1080185)

        Design patent just covers drawings and nothing else. I dont know if it is essential to have a working prototype in order to patent a design (although I think it is not required).

        Example: The design patent for the iPad
        http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889 [google.com]

        The only text in the entire design patent is this:

        "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

        Effectively, this is exactly what the Star Trek TNG tablet was. An electronic device no different from the class of devices that iPad is a part of.

        I am not sure if a digital photo frame can fit into the sam

      • You cannot use something that is completely fake like that as "prior art".

        Correct, as it is even so with design patents, which is limited to the ornamental design of a functional item. Theatrical props can never be prior art unless they are functional.

      • Maybe you legally can't, but when you're talking about a design patent, you should damn well be able to. The devices on the show didn't work, of course, but they showed off a coherent design.
      • patents. So yes props and the like do matter.

        The fictional shows, like "2001 A Space Odyssey " clearly show that Apple did not invent the rectangle.

  • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:02PM (#40808305) Homepage Journal

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

  • iPhone says to Samnsung Galaxy: "I AM your father!"
    Galaxy: "That's IMPOSSIBLE!"
  • A smartphone is basically a portable computer. We've had computers for ages. Now, how do you get data into a portable computer? The most sensible way is the cell network, so why don't we make these portable computers make phone calls, too?

    Okay, so we have a computer. It needs a microphone and a speaker on it, so we can make phone calls. Why not put a camera on it too, since the market has decided that cameraphones are a neat idea.

    Okay, how are you going to control your little portable computer? Well, there'

    • Now, how do you get data into a portable computer? The most sensible way is the cell network

      How is that more sensible than by having a bridge from a wireless LAN to the wired network at any place where a portable computer will be used for long periods? That solution leads to the device category once called a "PDA" and now called a "pocket-size tablet" and exemplified by the iPod touch, Archos 43, and Galaxy Player. (If the Nintendo DS weren't locked down, it would have qualified as well.) These too can act as phones using applications that implement VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol).

      Now, computer interfaces have long used the paradigm of "show the user shit on the screen and have a device that simulates pointing at the screen called a mouse for the user to pick stuff to do."

      Computer int

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?

Working...