Apple's Legal Fight With Samsung Revealed a Gold Mine of Top-Secret Information (bgr.com) 109
An anonymous reader writes with this story about how the Apple vs. Samsung battle brought to light the inner workings of Apple product development. BGR reports: "Following a contentious patent battle that raged on for nearly five years, Samsung last week finally agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages for infringing upon a number of iPhone and iPad patents. While Samsung may still be holding out hope that it may someday recover those millions, it seems that we can finally start closing the book on the most widely publicized patent dispute in recent memory, one which saw Apple and Samsung battle it out in courtrooms across all corners of the globe.
One of the more interesting aspects of Apple's legal battle with Samsung is that it gave us an unprecedented look behind the veil of secrecy that typically shrouds all aspects of Apple's product development and day-to-day operations. Over the course of discovery, innumerable court filings, and a fascinating trial, the inner workings of Apple were brought to the forefront for the fist time in history. From photographs of iPhone prototypes to how Apple conducts market research, Apple's legal battles with Samsung provided tech enthusiasts with a treasure trove of previously top-secret information.
With Samsung now agreeing to pony up for damages, we thought it'd be a good time to take a step back, reminisce, and take a look at some of the more interesting nuggets of information the hard-fought patent dispute brought to light."
One of the more interesting aspects of Apple's legal battle with Samsung is that it gave us an unprecedented look behind the veil of secrecy that typically shrouds all aspects of Apple's product development and day-to-day operations. Over the course of discovery, innumerable court filings, and a fascinating trial, the inner workings of Apple were brought to the forefront for the fist time in history. From photographs of iPhone prototypes to how Apple conducts market research, Apple's legal battles with Samsung provided tech enthusiasts with a treasure trove of previously top-secret information.
With Samsung now agreeing to pony up for damages, we thought it'd be a good time to take a step back, reminisce, and take a look at some of the more interesting nuggets of information the hard-fought patent dispute brought to light."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if this will help but it might. See, there's nothing to worry about. They're probably not wanting to have sex with you. Finally, the odds of finding a rapist in a group of transgendered or hermaphroditic people are probably lower than the odds one might have of winning the lottery. In other words, it shouldn't be very high on your list of concerns.
If, by some strange turn of events, you find yourself encountering one of these folks who is acting in a sexually threatening manner then you might j
Re: (Score:2)
assumes a basic fact with no evidence. there is no evidence Samsung worked on ANYTHING like either iOS or the original iPhone prior to the iPhone being announced.
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:5, Informative)
how the hell did Samsung get info on it years before the release
You mean Apple's hardware partner? No idea...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
in case your ignorant.
In case his ignorant what? Why do you leave us hanging?
Re: (Score:1)
Without the iPhone, your current Samsung phone would be a fat brick with mushy buttons and a tiny screen.
They wouldn't have seen LG's Prada phone for example?
Samsung "designed" their phones by mimicking every last thing the iPhone did.
Everybody copies ideas from everybody in this industry. Whether it's Apple taking their design cues from Braun or copying Android's notification center and control center or copying Windows Phone's multitasking UI. Or whether it is Samsung copying some of Apple's design elements (the Galaxy looked *very* similar to an iPhone from the front but nothing like it from the sides or the back for example) everybody picks up ideas from everybody else.
That's called stealing IP
Then all of
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you did miss the part where you're being way too literal; and how the phrase "top secret" has come to mean much more than just a classification by the US Government in common language like 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Government data classification markers have specific syntax. Just saying 'Top Secret', also in a government setting, is at most an indication, not binding (for one, because there are more countries that speak English, for example). For classification markers to be legally binding, they must follow certain rules (where the info came from, and who has need-to-know). Also, companies these days have data classification systems. They don't have legal redress of course, but they can fire you and/or try to have yo
Re: (Score:3)
Am I missing something?
no, it's all about click-baits.
This is not at all interesting. (Score:1)
I want the physiological details of how the Jesus Phone incarnated parthenogenetically and triumphed over mortality.
The rest is just CEO trashtalk which amounts to nothing.
I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. (Score:3, Interesting)
>> how Apple conducts market research
I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. http://appleinsider.com/articl... [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Words Mean Things:
"In his brief time on the stand at Tuesday's Apple v. Samsung court proceedings, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller said the company doesn't rely on "typical" market studies to create its products.
"That plays no role in the creation of the products."
If they had done market research before they created the first iPhone, people would have said that they wanted a phone with a keyboard. No one would have said that they wanted a computer without a floppy drive and
Re: (Score:1)
Simple: Jobs lied.
8-sided model is interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Those octagon-like corners might be a good way to get around Apple's patent on rounded corners. Could've saved Samsung half a billion dollars.
Re:8-sided model is interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote myself from a few weeks ago [slashdot.org] when someone else misunderstood how design patents differ from utility patents...
For some reason, many Slashdotters seem to be completely unaware (or perhaps willfully ignorant) of the distinction between utility patents (i.e. what we think of when we say "patents") and design patents, which are something else entirely. As a result, when they hear that "Apple got a patent on rounded corners", they rightfully think that's utterly ridiculous and an example of a broken patent system, when it's actually nothing of the sort, since design patents more closely resemble a time-limited trademark than they do a utility patent.
The reality of the situation is that Apple is one of likely thousands of entities with design patents that include a claim for rounded corners. That's because those design patents aren't just making a claim for rounded corners. They're for rounded corners + a long list of additional claims that makes each of those products uniquely identifiable as the product they are. In the case of the iPhone 5 series, the design patent was for something along the lines of rounded corners + chamfered edges + aluminum trim + flat glass front + aluminum back + no adornment on the front + some other stuff I'm forgetting. I've seen a similar design patent filed by Samsung that covers some of their phones, and, as you'd expect, rounded corners were included in their list of claims as well. Again, each claim is considered alongside the other claims, rather than independently of the other claims, and for a competitor to be infringing, they need to be infringing against not just one of the claims, but against many or all of them. After all, rounded corners do not an iPhone make.
All of which is to say, yes, changing something simple like that may very well have prevented Samsung from being out a half billion dollars. Or they could have ditched any one of the other number of features they had that were listed as claims in the relevant design patents that Apple was issued. Do a tapered back/sides instead of having a flat back and flat sides. Do a rounded edge around the screen instead of a chamfered one. Curve the glass instead of having it flat. Make the corners elliptical instead of circular. There are any number of ways to circumvent design patents. It's not particularly challenging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it was a rounded screen, with a grid of icons. Below that grid was a static set of icons. The upper grid of icons could be swiped to move from "page" to "page" while the lower static set stayed the same.
That was the gist of it. And no stock Android OS had that - the "static grid of icons" only applied to the home screen, but that was fixed by having stuff like clocks and widgets there, so it wasn't a grid of ico
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it was a rounded screen, with a grid of icons. Below that grid was a static set of icons. The upper grid of icons could be swiped to move from "page" to "page" while the lower static set stayed the same.
I don't remember there being any grid of icons shown in the design patent. I'm pretty sure there was nothing shown on what would be the screen.
Re: (Score:1)
Ie, do what all the other phone manufacturers did.
Not slavishly copy the product, the packaging, the icons, etc etc etc.
To get an idea about Samsung design, look at their TVs. We have one where we removed the base so we could hang it on the wall.
What you saw was a small portion of the stand still attached that hung below the bottom of the screen. It looked bloody stupid, Apple would never have shipped something that poorly designed (neither did a number of other TV manufacturers either).
Samsung has a LONG h
Re: (Score:2)
The thing you conveniently overlook is that the Apple and Samsung devices under discussion were DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS and had different buttons and so would be hard to mistake for each other. .
Yep, because you say so. [technobuffalo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I followed your link and, even if they weren't labeled, I'd have been able to tell them apart. This is a person who doesn't even *use* tablets as a general rule (though I own a number, that was just because I've tried to like the form factor) and doesn't actually use iDevices very often at all. Why you'd expect lawyers to know is a bit odd. They might have a degree but they're not always that bright. Either way, the two are vaguely similar but I'm not sure if I'd have found them similar enough to warrant fi
Re: (Score:1)
If your case is about defending your product's uniqueness against a second competitor, you better be familiar with those products and darn well be able to identify them, especially if you're the lawyer. The fact that they could not speaks volumes about how the average person, who you would expect to be less familiar with those products than the lawyers paid to defend them, would be able to tell them apart, especially if they're not seen side by side.
I use both sets of products (Samsung and Apple) and I can
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. The patents that Apple is so proud of have basically no technical utility.
Design patents are explicitly prohibited from having any utility, since that's what utility patents are for. A design patent that is found to have utility is invalid. Both Samsung and Apple have separate utility patents to cover the utility of their devices, but those weren't at issue in these suits, from what I understood, since this was a case about one company suing another company for making lookalike devices.
As for Apple's attitudes towards their patents and whether or not they feel pride towards them,
Re: 8-sided model is interesting (Score:2)
Battlestar Galactica much?
Short summary of the "secret" information (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Long product roadmap: Apple plans many products and features years in advance.
Only about a year in advance. That's the year it takes to see other people release a feature and then copy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple takes a VERY long view or things, at least when Steve was around.
The recent report that Apple would be "using OLEDs In iPhone Models From 2018" would indicate they still do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technologically speaking I am not sure why they haven't done so yet. I can only imagine there is some reason like logistics that prevent them from doing so. Or is it a technological limit like contrast ratio that OLEDs are now starting to overcome.
Even if todays OLEDs have actually finally overcome their flaws, they still don't yield enough to feed Apple's production numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I know of the iPad, the first prototypes were Intel Atom based and got terrible battery life.
Yeah. Sure. The first iPad prototypes are actually older than the first iPhone prototypes, [cultofmac.com] Yeah, I'm sure they used a CPU that came out after the iPhone. Snark aside, from TFA I just linked to:"The ARM chip looks like a variant of the Samsung S3C2410, which Ars Associate Writer Andrew Cunningham said is “a distant relative of the chip the first iPhone ended up using, just older and slower.”
Amazing... a three-paragraph summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a 3 paragraph summary, It's a 3 paragraph copy-paste of the opening of the article.
Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forstall cryptically told them that if they opted to join, they would have to “work hard, give up nights, work weekends for years.” Not mincing words, Forstall also told prospective team members: “If you choose to accept this role, you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life.”
You see, this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be. And in Cupertino, CA with those work hours and demands, I'd be looking for $500K per year - at the minimum. See, all the free California shit pizza in the World isn't good enough compensation.
But, there's a huge line behind me of people with no money sense or lives who jumped at that chance. That's their choice. But when you wake up one day in your late thirties, alone and with diminishing career opportunities, you ask yourself how you could be so stupid to devote so much of your life to a job. And there's this jab of pain when you see some of your classmates who pursued less demanding careers that have a loving spouse and family. And then your job is off-shored.
Re:Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I put on my resume in 2008 that I had played a major role in the design of the iPhone, I think I could command much higher salaries than if I said I wrote yet another line of business software-as-a-service web app.
Ride the Big One [Re:Money?] (Score:2)
If I could expect "glory", big stock, and/or resume credit, I may have considered such when younger.
I've actually been promised similar things, BUT the owners flaked in the end or the product flopped. I roughly cloned Ebay in 4 weeks once under such pretenses. (I was cross-eyed at the end.)
9 times out of 10 when you are asked to "sell y
Whoa, that iPad prototype (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument against that version of history has always been that the back of the picture frame [akihabaranews.com] looks nothing like the back of the iPad. Well, now we have this image of the back of an early iPad prototype [bgr.com], lending support to the theory that Apple used Samsung's picture frame as a starting point for their iPad design.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ah, but here's where patents screw up everything: Once you have your patent rubber stamped by the idiots at the patent office whose sole job is to ensure the check cleared, it's a valid patent.
The patent system is so horribly that once the design patent was awarded, things like facts and reality became irrelevant -- because design patents are just as broken as patents on inventions; first guy to get it accepted wins.
What people miss here is that this is a situation created ENTIRELY by the way the patent sy
Re: (Score:3)
For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006
That's great - I had no idea digital picture frames were secretly tablets in disguise! Who doesn't remember digital picture frames from 2003-2004 sold at Shaper Image? Guess Sharper Image (or whoever actually manufactured the products) should sue Apple too!
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006 [engadget.com], long before the iPad was even a rumor, and even pre-dating the iPhone.
But not before what would be the iPad was sold as a Tablet Mac rumor (or rather Patent) in 2005 [engadget.com]. Note that the Samsung picture frame is not a copy of that patent, because it actually doesn't look all that much like it [roughlydrafted.com].
More like a crappy garage sale than gold mine (Score:3)
Trade Secrets are not Top Secret (Score:1)
Top Secret is a classification given to sensitive government information. It is not related to Trade Secrets in the least. There was no Top Secret information revealed in the court filings. If there were people would be getting indicted for mishandling classified information.
Shouldn't corporate top secret info be sealed? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Seagate did that to me. They claimed the warranty started when the drive was made instead of when I bought it. Sad to see Apple pulling the same crap.
Wait, what?!? They can do that?
How are we supposed to know when buying when a drive was manufactured? This sounds downright illegal.
Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled (Score:2)
With hard disks, the mfr date is listed on the box.
Re: (Score:1)
With hard disks, the mfr date is listed on the box.
What happens if you buy it online?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly? Caveat Emptor, probably.
However, you may have something known as a "warranty of applied merchantability" in your state. Check your local regulations. I'll leave you to Google it but, in short, it's something that businesses either hope you know nothing about or lack the will to make use of it. However, you may well have an implied warranty in your State even if the company doesn't know this or wish to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What is their excuse for not fixing it? You don't even need AppleCare; it's still under warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the CPUs that Apple uses now, feel free to go back to the mobile PowerPC G4 of 12 years ago. IBM wasn't going to make a low-power G5, because they just couldn't do it, and the POWER6 next-gen CPU family was going to be even more wattage thirsty.
This is why Apple jumped. PowerPC was a dead end for applications that didn't involve the cooling capacity of a data center.