Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Ordered To Hand Over Unreleased Designs To Apple

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the we-totally-didn't-copy-your-design dept.

Apple 260

An anonymous reader writes with an article in Edible Apple "Samsung last Wednesday was ordered to hand over to Apple five as-of-yet unreleased products so that Apple can compare them to their own offerings ahead of litigation. Apple of course claims that Samsung's products blatantly copy the look and feel of Apple's iOS devices."

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Except That Is Completely Incorrect (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240442)

The current headline reads:

Samsung Ordered to Hand Over Unreleased Designs to Apple

Uh huh ... well, when I go to the original source cited in the article [courthousenews.com] I find this piece of text:

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.

(Emphasis mine.) I must confess that one does have to read the entire article of Courthouse News to get to that somewhat important and relevant tidbit but that is asking a bit much for an editor. Or perhaps that was known but "Court Counsel to Judge Samsung Prototypes" just doesn't boil up the anti-Apple blood like the current headline does?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240510)

this is 2011 and the Age of Blogs. Get with the program

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (3, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240602)

this is 2011 and the Age of Blogs. Get with the program

Who needs information when you have presumption?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240658)

We're not here to learn, we're here to argue. Slashdot is a game, not a news site.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240822)

we're here to argue.

No we're not. [mindspring.com]

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (0)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241008)

If you're going to link, at least link to the actual skit [youtube.com] rather than the script.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (3, Funny)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241144)

Interesting that a link to a video is preferred over the script in a thread where the root post is a complaint that nobody reads...

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241724)

Well, to be fair, the point the original poster was making was to go to the source, not a transcript.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (0)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241034)

Sorry, this is abuse. You want room 12A.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1, Insightful)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241168)

we're here to argue.

No we're not. [mindspring.com]

YES. WE. ARE!!!!!

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240950)

Winning! Bitches.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (0)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241088)

Who needs information when you have presumption?

And YouTube-videos to back you up. I've noticed that almost no matter how crackpot the person is, there's always a youtube video that supports his delusions. Preferably a really long one, and when I refuse to spend 30 minutes of my life to see it because you can't use ten seconds to tell me what it's about, then I don't know or understand anything and he wins any discussion by default, if you saw the video you'd understand. Like the pothead who linked me to a vid where among other things, it cured cancer. I mean, seriously... How 'tard can you get?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241294)

2011 - The Age of Stupidity. Have you been outside lately? America and maybe the entire world has reached an all time high of stupidity and irrationality.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240572)

The very article you linked to says the same thing:

"Samsung Electronics was told Wednesday to fork over five of its not-yet-released mobile phones to Apple."

And I am pretty sure it would be hard to put this news in a light that wasn't anti-Apple.

No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240804)

And I am pretty sure it would be hard to put this news in a light that wasn't anti-Apple.

I am one of the most anti-Apple people out there. I own a very old iPod I bought from a friend for $30 and I love the device but I hate the software so I use my own GPL software to access it. I will never buy an Apple product first hand. I will never buy their software and I will never develop for them. But I don't let that get in the way of facts about current news.

I personally feel like all the major phone makers were playing nicely until Apple joined and then someone kicked the patent hornet nest. If I recall correctly, Apple sued Samsung first but Samsung has since retorted with a patent lawsuit against Apple and as far as I'm concerned there are very few innocent players [designlanguage.com] in the mobile phone market these days. It is my opinion that Apple's design (ornamental?) patents [wikipedia.org] or look and feel patents do disgust me more than other functional oriented patents ....

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (3, Interesting)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241148)

It is my opinion that Apple's design (ornamental?) patents [wikipedia.org] or look and feel patents do disgust me more than other functional oriented patents ....

That's an interesting stance. It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just. After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

So apple patented the design of a home screen consisting of rectangular icons with a 1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width. Why wouldn't I, as a competitor, want to make a product that looked different? Mine will have round icons instead. problem solved. Yeah, some people just want to make a knockoff product that looks like an iphone. Design patents make that hard. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. As a consumer i'd kind of like a choice in how my phone looks.

It's the fact that someone can patent an algorithm, like displaying a full screen launch image prior to loading the application to give the system a feeling of responsiveness, that i find egregious.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241244)

Mine will have round icons instead.

And if someone has already patented round icons with a prior design patent? What if both square and round icons are patented ... do you go to triangular? Are you forced to pick a shape that has yet to be patented and patent it yourself before someone else does? Enjoy your icosahedral icons.

What you are talking about should be copyright, not patent. And it should be the entire look and feel, not broken down to components like they always are (and are the basis for a lot of these suits as tiny pieces are scrutinized against claims in the many design patents).

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241548)

After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

And how many of those are good interface designs?

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241566)

Don't be silly. It's a rectangle with rounded corners, the corners can only be within set limits to keep the container the right size. People have been doing rounded corners since the 80s, I know I did on Amiga development, and there was no way this wasn't done before on other systems. Icons need to convey information, there's only so much you can do with geometry before they look complete shite.

They're not the first rounded corners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241632)

Because Apple didn't invent the rounded corner, and their products use styling cues copied from other companies.

Really unless there is confusion in the customers mind because of the rounded corners, then design patents should not be there, they should be trademarks.

If its not distinct enough to be trademarked then its not right to give Apple an exclusive on something it based on other peoples work.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241726)

the biggest problem that I have with this, is that -every- phone I have had in the last 6 or so years, essentially has had square, 1*1 icons on the screen. The only difference between my RAZR or my Nokia 6682 and my Nexus is that I touch the icons, instead of navigating them using the d-pad.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241220)

Don't let reality get in the way of your Apple hate.

http://www.economist.com/node/17309237 [economist.com]

"Since 2006 the number of mobile-phone-related patent complaints has increased by 20% annually, according to Lex Machina, a firm that keeps a database of intellectual-property spats in America."

The first iPhone was unveiled by Apple CEO Steve Jobs on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007.

So the mobile patent wars started before Apple showed up, Apple just added another litigation happy company with a ton of patents and money to the mix.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241404)

Yeah, if you look at the graph he included, it's pretty obvious that Apple is one of the big litigators. Nowhere did he say Apple started it.

And what sort of fucked up logic "proves" that Apple had nothing to do with the explosion of patents given your "reality" or "fact" or whatever you want to call it? How does that logically follow?

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (1, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241648)

Here's the problem in 1 sentence from a Samsung Galaxy S [slashgear.com] review : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS." There's a fine line between using similar desing elements and making something so similar it's mistaken for something else. Should it be illegal ? Probably not, but you can sort of see why Apple is pissed off.

Re:No Matter How Much I Hate Apple, I Prefer Facts (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241746)

Yes, but it was a nest that needed kicking.

I mean the state of phones was stagnant.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240582)

Or perhaps that was known but "Court Counsel to Judge Samsung Prototypes" just doesn't boil up the anti-Apple blood like the current headline does?

Welp, this is an ad-supported site.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240662)

This is apple.slashdot.org, not slashdot.org.

How much Apple is paying for the subdomain has not yet been determined.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240914)

How much Apple is paying for the subdomain has not yet been determined.

Zero. Go to Apple.slashdot.org, look at the number of comments for each story, and you'll see why.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240636)

I think it's even more impressive how TFA poses

The obvious question is how Apple can request to see products that haven’t been released yet...

without even remotely taking the time to follow through on their own motto of "Apple news, rumors, and analysis".

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (2)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240966)

Apple didn't "request" anything. The judge saw enough graphical evidence in apple's case, she decided a "preview" was in order.

"Without expressing an opinion on the merits of Apple's claims, the court acknowledged that "Apple has produced images of Samsung products and other evidence that provide a reasonable basis for Apple's belief that Samsung's new products are designed to mimic Apple's products."

there's an image from APPLs filing here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/24/samsung_ordered_to_show_its_new_prototypes_to_apple.html [appleinsider.com]

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240720)

Also, the five "unreleased designs" are:

The Galaxy S2, [youtube.com]
the Galaxy Tab 10.1, [youtube.com]
the Galaxy Tab 8.9, [youtube.com]
the Infuse 4G, [youtube.com] and finally
the Droid Charge [youtube.com]

"Unreleased designs?" Seriously?

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (3, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240960)

Addendum:

The three phones can be purchased today (the Galaxy S2 may not ship for about two weeks). The Galaxy Tab 10.1 will be officially available June 6. The Galaxy Tab 8.9 will be in stores "very early summer".

Samsung has 30 days to provide these gadgets.

According to TFA the judge herself "highlighted that Samsung has 'already released images and samples of its forthcoming products to the media and members of the public.'"

Industrial espionage this ain't.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241564)

It's worth noting that 5000 Galaxy Tab 10.1's were given away to Google I/O attendees earlier this month.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (2)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241002)

I think legally it's correct (enough)

When company hires a law firm to represent them.. that FIRM IS them.. (you're speaking on their behalf in a court of law).. that's why you hire lawyers.. to represent you.

the fact that Apple employees don't get to see it is secondary - all it guards against is Apple possibly taking queues from the Sammy's next iterations.

Re:Except That Is Completely Incorrect (2)

umghhh (965931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241568)

The headline is indeed incorrect yet I find the uh uh shouts bout 'anti-Apple blood' a bit far reaching. This is in line with my experience with any so far identified apple user. Admit - how many iProducts do you posses?

no surprise (2)

rhodes187 (570426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240518)

I've noticed many of their phones and the Galaxy tablet look almost identical to their Apple counterparts.... Apple should come out with a TV that mimics exactly what Samsung's current TV line looks like (but with Apple TV baked in).

Re:no surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240562)

Will people stop it with the stupid "Apple should sell a TV with a built-in AppleTV in it" idea.

TVs aren't computers. Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television. That's why the low-cost AppleTV exists. You add it to your current television.

* Posted from Safari on a Mac mini, so don't accuse me of being anti-Apple.

Re:no surprise (3, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240624)

Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television.

Sounds lucrative to me...

Re:no surprise (1)

rhodes187 (570426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240712)

I honestly was just being facetious, while I wouldn't rule it out, I don't think an Apple branded TV would be a great idea.... I was just bringing up an eye for an eye move by Apple (they copy us, we copy them)...

Re:no surprise (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241018)

Then please explain why it takes 10 seconds for my new tv sets to boot up with "The please wait..." message.
Oh, it's also has upgradable firmware via the USB port

(Hint: it's a cheapy store brand, under $300, 2 years ago)

Re:no surprise (5, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240618)

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

Re:no surprise (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241070)

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

As the owner of two MacBooks, two iPods, two Samsung TVs and a Samsung Colour Laserprinter, I can tell you that a newish 40" Samsung TV has a very distinctive look (which is actually quite nice, and one of the reasons for me to buy it), and if someone copied that look then I think Samsung would be very upset, and rightfully so. Just as Apple is quite upset about someone copying the looks of the iPhone.

Re:no surprise (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241122)

I shrugged at that myself, but then I've bought Samsung Galaxy S II a few days ago. And you know what? It really tries very hard to look like an iPhone. I don't just mean the full-glass front screen and a hardware "home" button. Their replacement launcher, TouchWiz, is also an iOS lookalike, with four icons on the bottom. App drawer is replaced to work more like iOS, too, with automatic sorting of icons replaced by manual positioning on a number of screens. Heck, they even changed tab switching UI in the browser to look identical to iPhone, except that the close button is (-) instead of (x).

So, it's not just Apple being silly here. Mind you, Samsung beats them on some other points (like screen size and contrast/brightness, or sheer hardware power), but they definitely do copy the design.

Re:no surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241650)

You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.

Apple has white iPhone and iPad models. Maybe they did a design patent on those. :)

Re:no surprise (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240674)

I'd still choose the Samsung, because it will likely have a high-contrast Samsung LCD panel, and of course Samsung customer service, and out-of-warranty repairs are often covered by Samsung but when not, quake-induced shortages aside, it's usually easier to get replacement parts from Samsung than Apple.

Whereas the AppleTV-embedded TV will probably be orphaned in 2-3 years and no longer work because the new AppleTV firmware will no longer support the older model, and besides, out-of-warranty repairs will be pricey because parts will be hard to come by. Oh, and there will be no slots for memory cards, no USB ports, and certainly no cablecard ports.

Seriously though, I would stick with Samsung because televisions is what Samsung does best, and I'd go to Apple for a smartphone because smartphones are what Apple does best, even despite the "walled garden" mentality.

Re:no surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240704)

Apple shouldn't build a TV, IMO. TVs pretty much work OK already. They should get into autosound, which is a market that desperately needs their sort of disruption.

Re:no surprise (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241032)

I've noticed many of their phones and the Galaxy tablet look almost identical to their Apple counterparts....

So what? You can't copyright "look and feel" [wikipedia.org] . And you can't patent something unless it is innovative - a thin touchscreen phone/computer with rounded edges is not innovative - it's obvious. There are many episodes of Star Trek that show the concept of a touch screen computer that would qualify as prior art.

Re:no surprise (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241254)

You can't copyright look and feel; however, thus is a patent suit. You can patent and trademark designs. I think if you started a soda company called Carl's Cola with similar red cans/bottles and using the same script as Coca-Cola, I think their lawyers would like to meet with you. Apple has won before on look and feel suits. They won against eMachines who came out with a bubbly blue all in one PC that they felt looked too much like the original iMac.

Re:no surprise (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241076)

Next up : Dell [engadget.com] . Hey if you got to copy so

I have lots of Samsung Phones (5, Funny)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240556)

And none of them have antenna/reception issues, so where is the copying taking place?

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240646)

Well presumably they are only going to copy the good ideas, not the stupid ones.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240650)

So far Apple claims most of the Samsung designs have copied the 3G/3GS design. If they unreleased products have the same external antenna design, what would be your response?

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241472)

My response would be along the lines of "Why would Samsung copy Apple's colossal blunder?"

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241684)

So far Apple has accused Samsung of copying the design of an older model. If Samsung's newest phones copy Apple's current model, your response is not to acknowledge that Apple may be right; your response is to levy insults at Apple. Interesting response.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240938)

TFA quotes the judge:

Because these claims are subject to consumer confusion and “ordinary observer” standards, the products themselves and the packaging in which they are sold are likely to be central to any motion for preliminary injunction.

"Consumer confusion" - Apple is arguing that consumers find it difficult to tell the difference between a Galaxy S and an iPhone and might buy a Samsung product when they meant to buy an Apple one.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241106)

Without that pretentious little apple logo and the "Designed in California" placard I'm not entirely sure how a consumer would be confused.

Re:I have lots of Samsung Phones (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241166)

That's for in 2 years time when they finally get around to copying the current designs.

How can they? (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240590)

When they haven't seen the iphone 5 to copy it yet?

Re:How can they? (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240742)

In order to prove they aren't copying it, Apple should be forced to hand over the iPhone 5 design to Samsung.

Re:How can they? (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241736)

Maybe this is not the case since with Apple "unreleased" means non-apple people can not get them yet. Where as Samsung it means... well pretty much all of those 5 devices are already on the market. The Tab 8.9 is not, but it is just a slightly resized version of the Tab 10.1

KOREA !! CHINA JUNIOR !! SO YES OF COURSE COPYIEST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240592)

That's the asian way - copy the west and sell cheap to that same west !!

Trying to Compete is a Crime? (4, Insightful)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240610)

The article references:

"Helping their cause, Apple presented to the judge a news report which quotes a Samsung executive saying that they will have to improve parts of their upcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in light of the thinner iPad 2 from Apple."

Someone tell me how this is worth anything in the legal world? Of course Samsung would want to improve their product to compete with a product currently on the market. How is this relevant?

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240756)

Ever since we started adding '+internet' to everything and calling it a new invention, the law has gone spastic.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240828)

Because, if you accept Apple's legal theory that anything that looks like their product is an illegal copy then you understand. Of course they tried this with MS in the 90's (suing over the look and feel of MacOS) and got soundly trounced that doesn't mean that in the current environment they will lose. There has been a gradual shift in attitudes that copying the look or use of a product is illegal use of IP. That there is no basis in law for that doesn't stop them, after all half the patents now granted are on nothing more than look and feel patents that should have never been approved.

Re:Trying to Compete is a Crime? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241364)

Except Apple did not lose on the merits of their case; they lost because they signed a crappy deal with MS that allowed MS to copy their designs. Apple later won against eMachines for trying to copy the iMac so there is plenty of basis for these types of lawsuits. I think if Honda came out with a bubbly sedan that looks like a Volkswagen Beetle, they're going to get sued by Volkswagen.

coke or pepsi (1)

Valhemmer (1971300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240612)

Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

Re:coke or pepsi (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240696)

This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

No no, in this world, it is called "intellectual property". Welcome to the world where money can buy ideas.

Re:coke or pepsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240888)

Still bullshit, coke or pepsi summed it up!

Re:coke or pepsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241038)

No, it's not called that, because that's a scurrilous propaganda term. It's an intellectual monopoly that should be abolished.

Re:coke or pepsi (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241516)

No only if you purposefully make them look so much alike that it can potentially confuse the consumer. Like when you make a nearly identical handset and change the icons to very closely resemble the iPhone ones. Now personally I don't think this should be against the law, but the first time I saw a commercial for one of these phones I do remember thinking to myself they were shameless iPhone rip offs. I'm not the only one either :

First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design [wired.com]

Review: The IPhone Look Alike Samsung Eternity SGH-A867 (AT&T) [associatedcontent.com]

Samsung Galaxy S Review [slashgear.com] : "In the time we’ve been carrying the Galaxy S, more than a few people – geeks included – have mistaken it for an iPhone 3GS. The glossy black plastic and metal-effect bezel both echo Apple’s second/third-gen smartphone"

Re:coke or pepsi (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241530)

Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.

If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone. The Windows 7 phone doesn't look one bit like an iPhone. Now take one of these Samsung phones. They don't look one bit like a Windows 7 phone, but they look very, very similar to an iPhone.

Microsoft didn't copy Apple, they designed these phones themselves. Samsung copied. Apple has design patents that list about ten particular design choices, and Samsung copied all of them. Two or three design choices matching could have been coincidence, and most importantly the result would not look like an iPhone. All design choices matching means it looks the same, it is copied, and the copy is illegal.

Re:coke or pepsi (1, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241728)

And you conveniently forgot - Apple copied LG Prada. What's your point?

more of this look and feel bullshit again? (2)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240654)

Apple shut down Digital Research Inc's GEM/1 because of "look and feel" claims. Playing from the same old playbook even though the legal system around software has changed dramatically in the past 25 years.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241298)

Look and feel... And they're PAID to make key parts for iDevices.

You take Steve's money, he's going to bring down a hammer. Apple worked VERY closely with Samsung to develop touchscreen and flash modules... And paid UP FRONT too. Samsung is obviously not keeping a good "firewall" between their engineers that work on Apple products and the ones that design android phones. First Google makes a phoneOS (which was common knowledge) then Samsung jumps to Andriod phones ... I bet Samsung makes more money from iPhone flash and screens than from selling phones.. They're biting the hand...

But the basics are that Apple paid Samsung for premium access and now Samsung is trying to compete with them. Apple is writing BILLION dollar checks to these guys... Samsung's only bigger customer is Sony.

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241630)

[citation needed]

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241310)

Didn't they try that crap on Microsoft as well over Windows and lose?

Oh yes, yes they did: Apple v Microsoft [wikimedia.org]

"Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."

Re:more of this look and feel bullshit again? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241720)

Apple didn't shut down GEM/1, they made them (re)move the trash icon.

Compared to other industries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240718)

BMW's look like Mercedes Benz which look like Porsches, which look like Audis which look like Lexuses, which look like Infinitis, which look like Hyundais, which look like Astons, which look like Fords, which look like Chryslers which look like VWs.

Of course GMs are different, they just look ugly.

Apple: no valid legal argument, just after some extra bucks.

Re:Compared to other industries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241010)

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200807/2010-chevrolet-camaro-37-1_1600x0w.jpg [topspeed.com]

Going to go ahead and disagree with you there champ.

And if you think this http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/panamera/ [porsche.com] is not ugly, then you're wrong about that too.

Re:Compared to other industries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241080)

No they don't. Your comment is stupid and you are a moron.
  They all look "similar" since they are all cars, but there are easily recognizable
differences and if someone made a car that looked so close.

They aren't suing other android phones that are "similiar" i.e. it has a touch screen
etc. you wouldn't look at a motorola droid and tyhink it's an iphone, or the HTC
ones, but the samsung galxay line is very much like an iphone.

weak case ? (1)

anonymous9991 (1582431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240728)

they must have a weak case, you can not be held liable for unreleased or proof of concept products

Re:weak case ? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240904)

It is for the purposes of issuing an injunction against releasing those products, should they cause problems.

And as for Samsung copying the "design" of the iPhone, the iPhone is rectangular based shape with a screen. And while they look similar, so do Addidias shoes look similar to Nike (same basic shape [gstatic.com] ).

Re:weak case ? (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241258)

Well, maybe I'm mistaken, but the iPhone did seem to define the look and feel of modern smart phones. The idea of ditching the physical keyboard and making the screen the full size of the devices was somewhat revolutionary. That's not to say that anyone should be prevented from implementing that general design because I don't think people can own special rights to that sort of thing, but I think it is appropriate to give Apple some credit for its innovation.

Re:weak case ? (2)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241388)

It is for the purposes of issuing an injunction against releasing those products, should they cause problems.

And as for Samsung copying the "design" of the iPhone, the iPhone is rectangular based shape with a screen

Still, an icon for your photo gallery doesn't exactly *have* to show yellow flower petals, you know. Samsung copied details here to a depth that makes it more than clear that the phone and the software should look "just like the iPhone".

Personally I think it's just pathetic what Samsung did, even if the lawsuit is somewhat silly. On the other hand Apple has to draw a line somewhere.

When I first handled the Galaxy S I was surprised how obviously and unashamed this thing tried to ape the iPhone. "Rectangular shape with a screen" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Re:weak case ? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241610)

Ape indicates it is a crude imitation. There is no way one can mistake the Samsung for a iPhone, even though they look similar.

Brand new from samsung! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240730)

Shit in a box. Yes it's shit in a box. Please evaluate this.

Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36240788)

And we are to trust Apple? Not a chance.

Judge Lucy (-1, Troll)

briniel (916290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36240988)

'nuff said. In all seriousness though is it time to start demanding a criminal investigation of Apple? Their basic strategy appears to be to steal IP, then manufacture product with the cheapest possible hardware with a work force just above slave labor, occasionally sacrificing a few workers in the process. Then make it impossible to swap out parts without the machine self destructing and the average Joe will not even know his shiny new mac is built out of garbage. And that's just the front end. Apple is supposedly the most valuable IT company based on market cap, but have yet less than 10% of the market in in personal computers and very little presence in servers and supercomputing. Oh yeah, Mr. Jobs has already been caught backdating stocks. Not saying Apples books are cooked... they are more likely deep fried. Basic psychology tells us when criminals get caught they often perpetrate a much larger fraud in order to prove they are smarter than the justice system. And so far they are. Let's see how high that stock can go! Now I'm going to go back to listening to my iPod.

Weak, weak, weak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241004)

The "Edible Apple" article first of all- it implies that APPLE personnel are going to look at the devices. Wrong, according to the source quoted on Edible Apple itself. So Edible Apple seems to be counting on Apple users to NOT do more than a cursory read before making incorrect assumptions.

Second of all- the entire case.

Imagine this: Back in the early days-
TV manufacturer 1: "Ok, I am suing because I sell a tv in a box-shaped cabinet with a tube to display pictures with a knob for volume and another to change (tune) channels. Manufacturer #2 is trying to sell a device with the same feature set and WE are the ones who developed it. People will be confused about who makes these televisions if they are similar in this fashion."

Or car manufacturers:
Car company 1: "Judge, we have been selling a car with 4 rubber tired wheels, a gas powered engine and steering via a wheel in the front of the passenger cabin for 2 months. This new company is now trying to do the same thing! We have no problem if they use 5 wheels, levers to steer and do not place the engine in the front of the vehicle, but we have patents pending on our design of car and nobody else can use it unless the pay us a license fee."

This has really gotten ridiculous and the US legal system allowing it is yet more proof of how flawed it has become.

Did you read the contract? (1)

tanujt (1909206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241022)

Didn't the Samsung CTO read the iTunes contract before signing it on his iPad? It clearly says there that you agree to be sued for plagiarizing our devices if you are a device manufacturing company.

I hate samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241104)

Their Omnia cell phones came with WM 6.1 they would never release WM 6.5 for the Omnia when it came out. Only for the Omnia 2 would they do so. Which was a new model at the time so you would have to buy a new phone.

I have an old smart phone and I simply want to make phone calls with perhaps a limited range of options but I don't care.

Meanwhile in S Korea they give all their custoners free updates ad infinitum. They are NOT generous. They SUCK. I hate them more than APPLE !!!! From my research HTC is the company for cell phones.

Slashdot web design really really sucks. I wish there was a competitor.

Apple Tactics (1)

tzine3 (797293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241174)

Apple tried that with Palm over a demo. These tactics go back to 1984 over Digital's GEM OS. Samsung should subpena the iphone 5 designs from one of Apple's iSweatshops to ensure the reverse is not true as well.

Why look-and-feel patents suck (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241196)

Look-and-feel patents suck, and there's a very simple argument for that: users like to have similar interfaces for similar functions.

In case you don't agree: imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.

Re:Why look-and-feel patents suck (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241502)

Is that a new derivative of the QWERTY keyboard? They can patent that if they like - I don't see many people adopting it.

In Apple's Defense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241234)

Apple of course claims that Samsung's products blatantly copy the look and feel of Apple's iOS devices.

In Apple's defense, they're only claiming this because it's true.

Re:In Apple's Defense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241426)

As does any smart phone or tablet that is a rounded rectangle with a large touchscreen if that logic is accepted.

Which means that any smart phone or tablet design that does NOT have a physical keyboard on the front of the device should be licensed from Apple???

Let's see... maybe I should patent a claw hammer so that nobody else can make a hammer with claws to pull nails without paying me a license fee.

This is another example of ridiculously frivolous lawsuits trying to prevent competition and they REALLY need to stop.

Perhaps Samung Should countersue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241270)

http://gsmarena.com is a great source for info on old models of phones. As it turns out the iPhone 3G was introduced in June of 2008. As I look back through the GSM Arena archives I see that in January of 2008 Samsung released this: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f490-2203.php
In Feburary of 2007 Samsung introduced this: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f490-2203.php

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36241398)

So its a colored wallpaper with icons? I believe that has been done since the early 80s. I didn't think you could patent look and feel anyway outside of art or graphic design. Unless Samsung uses the same code, icons, or exact same hardware specs...which is pushing it...I don't see this being a winnable law suit.

The real problem is not that Samsung copied (0)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36241492)

as much as that they did a better job of it. The Galaxy Tab is simply better than the iPad2. IMHO is afraid of losing market share and this time, rather than innovate, they decided to litigate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>