Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Handhelds Iphone The Courts Apple

Samsung Wants To See iPhone 5 and iPad 3 136

tekgoblin writes "The suit against Samsung that Apple filed back in April has been full of surprises recently; Apple even asked to see some of Samsung's future devices. Now, Samsung is requesting to view Apple's upcoming devices such as the iPad 3 and iPhone 5."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Wants To See iPhone 5 and iPad 3

Comments Filter:
  • I've seen this before. The way to see the future with the concentration of sheer corporate power.
  • by lxs ( 131946 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @08:31AM (#36278822)

    "I show you mine if you show me yours."

    they never did.

  • Delaying Release (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @08:47AM (#36278878)
    I found the comment that this may delay their release the most interesting. If true, perhaps this will stop Apple and others from abusing the legal system in the future. Smart move on Samsung's part.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I believe that's only half the reason.

      The other half would be so Apple doesn't look at their designs, go "Oh snap that looks good" then rip it off for their next device. This way they both get to have the fun of being both sides of this assfuck.

      • Re:Delaying Release (Score:5, Informative)

        by carou ( 88501 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @09:13AM (#36278974) Homepage Journal

        Except that's completely incorrect. I know the link says "asked to see some of Samsung's future devices" but that doesn't mean the request was granted. Rather:

        She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.

        Apple will get no opportunity to rip off Samsung's pre-release designs. It's such a shame that the facts are so much less interesting than your speculation.

        • still, having only apple's counsel look at stuff gives them unfair advantage. I mean, they can make whatever claim they want about what they had planned for future devices.
        • Any communication (however illegal) of the counsel to Apple is privileged, and so I wouldn't trust them anymore than Samsung does.

          • Not all communication with counsel is considered privilege. Defying a court order or planning a crime, for example. For example a client may tell his counsel whether he or she committed a crime and that is considered privilege. A client telling counsel about future crimes he or she will commit is not privileged. Sanctions can be imposed on counsel that violate a judge's order including disbarment.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's right, Apple got to where it is today by ripping of Samsung's designs.

        • by deniable ( 76198 )
          No, they just rip-off Cisco's trademarks.
  • While I completely believe Apple is paranoid enough to believe that everyone is stealing their generic unappealing design, it's frightening that a judge can tell Samsung to pull down it's pants and cough.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I mean generic sure but "unappealing" is a bit ridiculous being that they're the most popular single devices out there.

      But hey, you're just trolling and I have fed you. Congrats.

    • by jo_ham ( 604554 )

      Cool story bro.

  • It will be a thin cuboid.
    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      It will be a thin cuboid.

      Actually it will be a rectangular prism with a low measurement on the Z axis.

  • I want to see them too.

  • ... But isn't it apple suing Samsung for copying their design?

    I can see why a judge wants Apple to see the next Samsung models, but I fail to understand why would he ever grant Samsung permission to check future Apple releases.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      To provide assurance to Samsung that Apple won't steal their tech for this next gen. If Samsung can see what Apple is up to currently and then Apple changes direction after seeing Samsung's stuff, Samsung can go after them.

    • It's a moot point - that is, made to demonstrate the one-sidedness of the equation.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      ... But isn't it apple suing Samsung for copying their design?

      I can see why a judge wants Apple to see the next Samsung models, but I fail to understand why would he ever grant Samsung permission to check future Apple releases.

      Because Samsung can counter sue if the future designs have copied anything from the Galaxy series.

      But then again, Apple is suing Samsung because the Galaxy S has rounded corners and the box it comes in is kinda the same. Heck, lets do away with the false pretences, Apple is suing Samsung because Samsung is a threat to them and they cant compete. Samsung is saying they will go after Apple's jugular with this move.

      • Right. This isn't about all the also-rans copying Apple's work [counternotions.com] at all, is it?
        • by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Right. This isn't about all the also-rans copying Apple's work at all, is it?

          No it isn't.

          If you've bothered to read the actual suit that Apple put together to sue Samsung with, they are suing over trivial things that cannot be patented like rounded corners.

          The law suit is about trying to stop a competitor before the competitor becomes too advanced for them.

          By the way, could you find a more trite and biased source of information. It's almost as if you need to reinforce a belief that you're not sure is actually true.

      • Can't compete? iPhones FAR outsell any Samsung device.

  • ...comes around. This should prevent Apple from taking Samsung's designs and running with them. Although I still fail to see how or why one should be allowed to patent a design. It's not like it's super secret if it's on the outside...

    • by CODiNE ( 27417 )

      Apple has requested examples of already released Samsung products. Samsung is asking for not yet released Apple products.

      It's clear who is trying to run with whose designs.

      • by msauve ( 701917 )
        From the summary, where a convenient link to more information is provided for your use: "Apple even asked to see some of Samsung's future devices."

        You don't understand what "future" means, do you?
        • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @01:23PM (#36280196)

          In the actual story, there are details about which products Apple wants to see. Samsung's products are already released or going to be released in the near future. They have been shown and demonstrated like at CES 2011 in February.

          • Galaxy S2: released in South Korea April 28, 2011
          • Galaxy 8.9: early summer 2011
          • Galaxy 10.1: release date June 8, 2011
          • Infuse 4G; released May 15, 2011
          • Droid Charge: released May 14, 2011

          Apple, however, has not announced nor shown their upcoming products. The public does not even know the name of upcoming products. This has been Apple's way of doing things for years. When Apple announces or shows their products, they will announce when they will be available and usually within weeks. The only exception I can remember is the original iPhone which had a six month lead; but the reason Apple stated that it announced so early was that it was going to be hard to keep it a secret much longer as they had to apply for FCC licensing. Apple applying for FCC licensing for a cell phone when they didn't make cell phones was going to be an public indication.

          The question one could ask is why Apple needs the design when the product is already released. The answer is rather simple: Samsung, as the manufacturer, is the only one that can provide official designs to Apple. Getting the designs from anyone else is not official.

          • by msauve ( 701917 )
            announced != released
            • Samsung announced the release date . With a release date of sometime in the next few months or wekks, it is highly likely that the designs have been finalized for manufacturing. Which is the point of why Apple want to see these not yet released products.
        • by jo_ham ( 604554 )

          And you don't understand what "biased, misleading and incorrect summary" means, do you?

      • It's clear who is trying to run with whose designs.

        And get their asses slapped with another expensive lawsuit? I wouldn't be so sure about that...

        I've seen both iPhones and Galaxy S-s. They may be similar, but that's because they're both phones, with a tried and true shape. I can see Apple taking a cue or two from the Galaxy S UI design, or maybe even the Nexus S (if that's included in the suit, it has a really nice apps list), but unless the iPhone 5 makes some groundbreaking changes in the UI, or is something like banana-shaped, I don't see how Samsung co

    • Maybe because most of Apple's target group is no what we colloquially refer to as "computer people"? As in (dramatization follows);

      (Granma): Hey 'ya all, I got me one of thems fancy Apples!

      (Uncle Bob): Lemme see .. Pert neer, but not plumb, that there ain't no Apples! Looks darn lot like one, though.

      (Granma): Ya recon? And that know-it-all on the store didn't speak up at all- next month ah'm in town, a gonna havta open up a can a' whoopass on that know-it-all boah in the store- some Mr rocket surgeon he t

      • I'd say Gramma's response would be more along the lines of "Well, if it works, what do I care...", being "not computer people". And it's not like Apple or anyone goes specifically after 'shady dealers', who would be most likely to copy and sell knock-offs. Other companies phones have solid tech behind them, even if they do look close (which kinda follows from being a phone, therefore sort of restricted in its shape and design).

    • If you think that patenting has to do with keeping things secret, then you obviously have no clue about the reason we have patents. Patents are designed to fully disclose an invention; actually a patent is supposed to be written in a way that someone skilled in the art can build the machine described in the patent. This to promote the disclosure of inventions, and with that to increase common knowledge. The reward for this full disclosure is a time-limited monopoly on the use of that invention.

      A design pat

  • by metalmaster ( 1005171 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @09:18AM (#36279000)
    Apple and Samsung employees/execs/lawyers are not viewing eachother's designs. The review is done by a supposedly unbiased third-party who will simply look for any infringement. No one from either camp gets to stare at what im starting to believe is some sort of circuit board porn [wazdat.com]
    • Access is access.
      (paid) "Outside counsel" is compliant counsel - especially for apple which is the kind of customer no lawyer can afford to offend.

      So apple should have no objections to exposing its future designs to "outside" counsel of Samsung's choosing - in south korea of course.

    • Funny, those circuit schematic pull-out diagrams are actually fairly common in military technical manuals. Most even fold out both ways!
  • I want secrutz too!

  • One Samsung model is outselling the iPhone 4 [unwiredview.com]

    Samsung and Asus now look like the biggest threats to Apple, in phones and tablets respectively.

    • In S. Korea, Android marketshare March 2010: 3% March 2011: 60% - not kidding!
    • If you actually read the link you provided, it clearly says "for this week." Statistically you'd need a much larger sample size than 1 to make a general claim for trends. I remember there were a few weeks when the Zune outsold the iPod. Those were the weeks when retailers like Amazon heavily discounted them to get rid of inventory as they had not been selling well. No one would say that over the history of the Zune that it outsold the iPod.

  • by cheros ( 223479 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @11:11AM (#36279454)

    Watch Johanna Blakely talk at TED [youtube.com] about the fashion industry.

    It's got a number of rather interesting points:

    - designers take creative input from anywhere
    - logos on goods are the only thing you cannot copy
    - the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway, something the music and film industry might have to start thinking about (Microsoft understands this better - it's what they use for initial market penetration).

    Worth watching, whatever side of the IP fence you live..

    • by wvmarle ( 1070040 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @12:01PM (#36279706)

      - the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway

      While (mostly) true, there is a good reason for fashion designers to crack down on copied goods: brand dilution. In Hong Kong it appears almost all women are walking around with the typical LV-styled hand bags. Standard in brown with golden logo printed all over. But of course most of those are cheap mainland-made rip-offs bought across the border or on local street markets.

      Those that spend a lot of money for the real thing do not stand out anymore. There is no reason to buy such a bag anymore, and the reason for a fashion-conscious person to buy some designer stuff is to have something unique. Why else pay the big bucks?

      • by jfengel ( 409917 )

        Meant to up-mod this, not down mod. Undoing...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Clearly you do not understand fashion, or do in an autistic way.

        The reason to but designer stuff is not to have something unique, it's to be able to be an asshole to those that didn't and make them jealous.

        The purest form of joy comes from saying "Oh is that a Loui Vuitton? How much did you pay for it? Oh it's a knockoff? well, mine's real. You cheap whore."

        • by cheros ( 223479 ) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:48PM (#36281602)

          Not to stir things up, but it would only be fair to observe that would be the viewpoint of those that cannot afford it..

          There are generally two reasons why people prefer a certain fashion brand: the type you mentioned (and yes, there's a lot of them about) and those who simply like the values and design the brand brings.

          Let me take a simple example. If you take the trouble to walk into an Armani store you can see two types of clothing: "LOOK AT ME" fashion which has the brand plastered all over it in the biggest, high contrast characters possible. That's the wannabe clothing, and the type most often knocked off.

          However, you will also find clothing that is simply well made, decently cut along the line of the cloth and sits well the moment you put it on. That stuff isn't as expensive as you seem to think - especially if you buy a bit more classic (easiest for a man) you can have such stuff for years, provided you don't change shape :-). Because it's expertly cut it also looks good.

          This is generally the case with the better brands - as long as you don't go super exclusive a decent brand will have a degree of managed quality. Which make you buy depends on what design you like - I don't have a favourite, I just buy what I like.

          I also buy crap if I can't be bothered - that generally lasts twice before I bring it to a textile collection point :-)

          • This. I bought my wife a Coach leather purse because the cheap pieces of crap she was buying were falling apart within a few months of her getting them. Coach makes some gaudy, ugly shite, and they also make some simple, classic bags that will look good just about forever. I got her the latter. Some of her friends acted as if she'd gone all bourgeois on them, but the truth is, $200 for one purse that's six years old and still looks new (with a little black shoe polish every once in a while) is way less
    • by Miktor ( 1285622 )
      You should already know that there is only one side of the IP fence on slashdot...
    • Well, the place where fashion and visual art differ from music, movies, games, and books, is that there is prestige with owning an original, which is a problem for your final point. Genuine brands and original works are reasonably rare, reasonably valuable, and a status symbol, which is what motivates people to buy them, instead of knock-offs and prints. With music, movies, games, and books, there is less prestige with associated with a "genuine" copy. There's no corresponding affirmation of status, no sens

      • by EdIII ( 1114411 )

        Genuine copy might not be valuable. However, I own the very very last remaining distribution copy of Rampart for PC. I remember calling some company, I believe Atari, and asking if I could purchase a copy of Rampart from them. The guy was so puzzled because I was asking this in something like 96 or 97. He put me on hold for 10 minutes and came back and said he found a copy in the store room. He said it was the last one in the box. I offered to pay him for it, and he said that was okay. Just cover the

  • This article points out that Apple is in a tough spot and cutting production and that the iPhone5 is rumored to have curved glass like the Nexus S.

    http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/cell-phones/samsung-believes-iphone-5-could-be-nexus-s-copy/12060.html [infosyncworld.com]

    Also interesting speculation that Samsung could keep its new ultra high resolution display screens away from Apple for a period of time to keep them behind the curve.

    These are interesting times...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You do realize that the Nexus S is considered an INFERIOR product and even a DOWNGRADE from the original HTC built NexusOne.

      Why would Apple want to copy a crappy product?

      • Why would Apple want to copy a crappy product?

        I don't really know, they're pretty good at making crappy products without Samsung's help.

      • Let me fix that for you:

        You do realize that the iPhone is considered an INFERIOR product and even a DOWNGRADE from the original nature built rock.

        HaHah! Take that you anglo-saxon kniggit! I fart in your general direction!

        Why would Apple want to copy a crappy product?

        Because, of course, logically, its because it is still better than what they're offering.

        Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

  • Is it possible that these two companies are using this lawsuit, that may go nowhere, to collude on pricing, by comparing technology? Just a thought.
  • to all those Apple products that looked so much like older Samsung products. Right.

  • I think what's sadder is that there is already talk of iPad 3 and iPhone 5 so soon after the release of iPad 2 and iPhone 4 - it just goes to show you how Apple views its customers to be milkable for complete replacements on an annual basis.

    Still, as the saying goes, "A fool and his money are easily parted".

    • By the standards of this market segment, Apple's actually slow to render its products obsolete. In the past nine months, Samsung has released the Galaxy S, the Galaxy S II, and the Nexus S, while HTC has had the Desire, the Desire S, and the Desire's explicit replacement, the HTC Sensation. The mobile phone industry runs on a three-month cycle, with conferences set to that rhythm. By releasing phones once a year, Apple's actually going relatively slowly.

    • Well the iPhone 4 was released in June 2010 so it's not "soon" for it. It is for the iPad 3. That makes the request for the iPad 3 design rather troubling as Apple themselves may not even decided on the overall shape of it yet.

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham