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!

The Surprises In the Latest Apple V. Samsung Court Documents

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the have-a-read dept.

Android 257

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."

cancel ×

257 comments

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

First Posts are not the same anymore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807651)

The glory days of Slashdot are behind us now. Taco, why have you abandoned us?

Re:First Posts are not the same anymore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808635)

And every day it gets worse. Slashdot is largely a collection of tech-wanna-bes who are too lazy and stupid to even realize they are wanna-bes.

No no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807669)

You meant to write that Apple was *copying* Sony and that Samsung was warned "Hey, we're copying Sony here, go copy someone else"...

As if first to copy imbued special rights.

Re:No no no (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807697)

Hey it did back when it was copying Xerox's XPARC. Why stop now?

Re:No no no (4, Funny)

MrHanky (141717) | about 2 years ago | (#40808377)

But Xerox was a xeroxing company. They made products for copying.

Re:No no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808429)

Xerox copiers, as long as the patent held, were the cash cow that supported the advanced research done by Xerox P.A.R.C.

Sadly, like the old AT&T, that is all gone. Out to China I guess.

Re:No no no (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40808451)

But Xerox was a xeroxing company. They made products for copying.

But then they went ahead and screwed things up by doing original research. Thus, the Natural Order of the world was disturbed and Steven P. Jobs ...

Well, we all know how that turned out.

we all know how that turned out (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808681)

he's dead and rotting in hell

More interesting news in the trial... (4, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#40807671)

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.

Re:More interesting news in the trial... (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#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).

Re:More interesting news in the trial... (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40807885)

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.

Re:More interesting news in the trial... (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40808003)

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.

Surprises? (2)

garcia (6573) | about 2 years ago | (#40807681)

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:Surprises? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807823)

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.

Re:Surprises? (2)

Deorus (811828) | about 2 years ago | (#40808175)

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:Surprises? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807845)

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.

Except Apple didn't copy anything from Sony. There is a difference between following a design philosophy and copying a product. The "Sony" phone that you see in mock ups were designed by Apple.

Re:Surprises? (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40807887)

The mock-ups were based on the design description from Sony, and are quite similar to the design patent awarded to Apple.

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807905)

So in summary Apple copied no Sony Product at all. Because it doesn't exist.

Re:Surprises? (5, Interesting)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#40808299)

That's right. As it seems,Apple did this: They copied Sony's idea based on their description of a product, not any real product, then patented the design as if they had invented it themselves as something genuinely new, and then sued Samsung for damages, claiming that it took them millions of dollars of R&D costs to come up with the design and the product specifications in the first place.

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808331)

Apple did this: They were inspired by a design philosophy from Sony and came up with a 100% original design, patented their design because they came up with it themselves because it was something genuinely new, then sued Samgung for ripping off their design.

Re:Surprises? (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40808385)

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

Re:Surprises? (5, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#40808667)

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

Re:Surprises? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40808741)

Exactly.

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808399)

It's even less than that. From 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 âexcessive ornamentation,â(TM) fit in the hand, were âsquare with a screenâ(TM) and had âcorners [which] have been rounded out,â(TM)â the document explains. An Apple industrial designer, Shin Nishibori, then mocked up the design, even using Sonyâ(TM)s logo on the back of the CAD drawing.

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

These are only accusations, and even then they only add up to displays of 'what our competition is thinking about'.

It doesn't demonstrate that the Apple-made /interpretation/ of what a Sony design /might be/ is the direct inspiration for the iPhone, only what one possible competition to the iPhone /might/ look like.

Yup, reviewing your competition 'changes' the course of a product. And it's a long long way from 'they copied us' or 'they got their product design from us'.

And since this is an /accusation/ from Samsung, rather than established fact in the case, it's revealing that they didn't even bother to make a more specific and useful claim. They knew bloody well they had nothing here but fluff.

Tactically, it's presented the way it is so it could only be discredited in court, but not draw more attention by being proved wrong. Means it becomes a neutralized point in the game, not a point for the other team.

Re:Surprises? (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#40807859)

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? (5, Informative)

punit_r (1080185) | about 2 years ago | (#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)

Re:Surprises? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808169)

Cant find an accurate date on these SONY phones (range 2006 to 2010), but the iPhone 4 looks extremely close to these.

Yeah extremely close to iPhone 4. Just like Rosie O'donnell is extremely close to looking like Megan Fox.

Re:Surprises? (2)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 2 years ago | (#40807993)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808027)

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...

Or more simply there was no design to patent. The only thing sony had was a design philosophy.

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808113)

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...

Actually that seems childishly naive not adult. Ignoring how the world actually works.

Re:Surprises? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40808421)

Actually no. It can be argued that Apple didn't have good results in their litigation, especially outside US. Most of their claims are of patents they filled of designs and concepts that either shouldn't be patented, because they were too general, or that had prior art. Additionally they got the reputation of patent trolls, which will hunt them sooner or later in courts, as judges start to get fed of it.

Re:Surprises? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 2 years ago | (#40809187)

It's only naive if you operate under the illusion that other companies don't engage in similar behavior. Refraining from engaging in said behavior is not naive, it's acting in a reasonable and ethical manner.

Re:Surprises? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40808523)

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? (5, Informative)

tooyoung (853621) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808351)

I thought that maths and slashdot intersected:

If none of the similarities between samsung and apple intesect the infringement set. Neither does their union.

Re:Surprises? (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40808877)

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....

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808981)

Sorry, but "It's not rounded corners, it's combination of all the features" meme is not much better, considering none of those repeating it ever bother to enumerate any of these features.

Let's try to do this here and break the tradition, shall we? I'll begin:

1) Rectangular with rounded corners,
2) Flat glass top,
3) Bezel around the screen,
4) Grid of icons in the launcher,
5) ...

Take it over from here.

Re:Surprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809083)

Sorry, but "It's not rounded corners, it's combination of all the features" meme is not much better, considering none of those repeating it ever bother to enumerate any of these features.

Let's try to do this here and break the tradition, shall we? I'll begin:

1) Rectangular with rounded corners,
2) Flat glass top,
3) Bezel around the screen,
4) Grid of icons in the launcher,
5) ...

Take it over from here.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/2011/05/03/apple-vs-samsung-a-visual-guide-to-apples-ip-claims-hardware-icons-packaging/

Re:Surprises? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 2 years ago | (#40808363)

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

Ok. Should we contact you by email or phone?

Re:Surprises? (2)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#40808575)

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.

Dockets vs. Briefs (2, Informative)

SniperJoe (1984152) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Dockets vs. Briefs (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about 2 years ago | (#40807793)

Careful, the troll from yesterday may strike here as well, and claim you have no right to correct the summary, as you're not a lawyer...

Anyway, I believe the lawyers are filing the dockets in their own filing cabinets (and that's where they were released from), not filing them as in "submitting them to the court".

Re:Dockets vs. Briefs (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40807907)

The first part of the summary is actually from the original Wired story (my quotation marks were removed). I always thought the docket was the schedule as well.

Apple Copies (1, Insightful)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40807755)

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

Re:Apple Copies (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40807835)

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 pulled it from the version.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808413)

"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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40808479)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808519)

Sure, apple made shiny, overlapping windows. Xerox didn't. Kudos to apple for improving upon an existing concept. Your point is?

Re:Apple Copies (3, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Apple Copies (2)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808761)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40808851)

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 (3, Insightful)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40809015)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40809097)

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?

Re:Apple Copies (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#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 (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Apple Copies (2)

Spliffster (755587) | about 2 years ago | (#40807889)

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

Re:Apple Copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808019)

s/Macintosh/Lisa/g
s/Assembler/Pascal/g

Re:Apple Copies (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40808033)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (2)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 years ago | (#40808045)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808423)

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

Re:Apple Copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808657)

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

No worries... everyone that knows what they're talking about and not just bashing Apple for the sake of it has made that mistake at least once... Apple ][ and Mac... they're just so gosh darn similar.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40808731)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808847)

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:Apple Copies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809057)

before you post again, read this [folklore.org] . GP is correct... and you are uninformed. Perhaps try to avoid making things up when you attempt a post... you are embarassing the other trolls.

Re:Apple Copies (1, Flamebait)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 years ago | (#40808017)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#40808123)

Well maybe the golden rectangle was appropriated, seeing as how it's a riff on the proportions of the Parthenon.

Re:Apple Copies (2)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808343)

I didn't say they stole anything. How exactly is "riffing on" different from COPYING? I don't speak hippie.

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808371)

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.

Re:Apple Copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808845)

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.

No worries, friend! Gawd, I totally did something similar the other day when I was trying to explain to some total n00bs that the new AppleDOS, Valley Cougar, now a Microsoft NT flavor, was available as a floppy image downloadable from Apple's BBS Store! Boy, was I embarrassed, I tell you what: everyone knows NT was a DEC technology, not Microsoft... don't know how I screwed that up... because I really know my stuff!

Re:Apple Copies (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 years ago | (#40808673)

What's with the mods on crack?

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

Re:Apple Copies (1)

jo42 (227475) | about 2 years ago | (#40808245)

Apple copies something. Does a better job than the original. Apple version becomes very successful (see iPhone) then everyone else (Samsung, Microsoft, et al) copies Apple trying to hitch a ride on the Apple bandwagon.

So exactly who was wronged here?

Re:Apple Copies (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#40808455)

I said nothing about anyone being wronged. I'm merely pointing out that most of apple's work is taking something that already exists, making it shiny, and then selling it.

Biased Wired.com article (4, Insightful)

punit_r (1080185) | about 2 years ago | (#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:Biased Wired.com article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807871)

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

There is no difference except for basically everything about it. That phone has absolutely nothing in common with an iPhone 4.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807931)

Sorry fanboy, Apple used Sony's design, that's extremely clear to all but the most myopic Apple cult member. They had their own staff copy Sony's design for comparisons to their own (awful) design, they even included the Sony logo. Apple then scrapped their own plans and went ahead with what the stole from Sony. You zealots can't defend this whatsoever, it's pure theft, and exactly the kind of thing, but more so, as Apple are using to suppress competition via "design" lawsuits around the world. Sony can use everything about Apple's cases against them, using Apple's legal declarations in courts of law.

Apple try to stop "rounded corners" by paying off judges, when their total iphone design is nothing more than mirroring a 2006 Sony design. Once again Apple have been caught conning and lying through their teeth to obstruct competing companies, when they themselves are the bigger crooks in the game.

Weep and cry, zealot, weep and cry!

Re:Biased Wired.com article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807995)

They had their own staff copy Sony's design for comparisons to their own (awful) design, they even included the Sony logo.

Except there was no Sony to design to copy. That mock up is one 100% designed by apple.

Apple then scrapped their own plans and went ahead with what the stole from Sony.

This is false on 2 counts because there were no scarped plans and they stole nothing from Sony because there was nothing from Sony to steal.

Sony can use everything about Apple's cases against them, using Apple's legal declarations in courts of law.

Sony has no legal standing in this what so ever.

Apple try to stop "rounded corners" by paying off judges, when their total iphone design is nothing more than mirroring a 2006 Sony design.

Explain to me how a phone that looks nothing like an iPhone is evidence that Apple copied Sony.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (1)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 years ago | (#40808103)

Sorry fanboy, Apple used Sony's design, that's extremely clear to all but the most myopic Apple cult member. They had their own staff copy Sony's design for comparisons to their own (awful) design, they even included the Sony logo.

There was no "design" to "copy" when Apple went to work on the iPhone design. Sony DESCRIBED a product design IDEA, and then Apple incorporated that idea as a design element in an ORIGINAL product.

That's how all product design works. And if you don't think so, you're deluded.

Oh, and "weeping" and "crying" are the same thing, unless you have festering open sores.

Moron.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808893)

Moron.

Wow, parents must have really loved you to give you that name. But by the complete lack of any understanding whatsoever in your posts, it fits.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (1, Interesting)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 years ago | (#40808063)

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...

Re:Biased Wired.com article (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40808163)

The article does contain this:

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

Re:Biased Wired.com article (3, Insightful)

punit_r (1080185) | about 2 years ago | (#40808187)

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

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

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

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

Re:Biased Wired.com article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808495)

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...

Judging by the quality of the phone, I'd say they spent about 3 weeks. I'm kidding :P
Actually I have an Android right now, but I think I should have bought a Blackberry this time. I had one for work and it was the most "bug free" phone I've used..... and it had real buttons.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (2)

punit_r (1080185) | about 2 years ago | (#40808537)

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.

Re:Biased Wired.com article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808823)

Forget the Sony. What about the LG Prada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

This Groklaw article makes it pretty clear how fucked up Apple is, even if you accept their claims about *whether or not they had valid patents to begin with*--what about the *value* of those patents?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518

Re:Biased Wired.com article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809041)

Forget the Sony. What about the LG Prada?

What about? It's another phone that looks absolutely nothing like an iPhone.

The other thing (2)

kilodelta (843627) | about 2 years ago | (#40807911)

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.

Star Trek: TNG is prior art (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 2 years ago | (#40808107)

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.

Re:Star Trek: TNG is prior art (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 2 years ago | (#40808569)

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 the screen facing the camera. Sometimes the silkscreen may have had backlighting and a pulsing effect to simulate rudimentary "animation" like you might have seen for a warp core readout in the background or blinking lights to simulate a pulsing button.

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

Re:Star Trek: TNG is prior art (2)

punit_r (1080185) | about 2 years ago | (#40808705)

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 same class of devices because the patent just claims an electronic device. Technically a digital photo frame is also an electronic device.

Re:Star Trek: TNG is prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809151)

oh ffs, here we go again.... just... stop. READ:

a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item [wikipedia.org]

Re:Star Trek: TNG is prior art (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40808947)

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.

Apple is the white looter (4, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 2 years ago | (#40808305)

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

Re:Apple is the white looter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808781)

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

Samsung's design was so similar to the iPad that their own lawyer couldn't distinguish it and Google chimed in and said "uhhh too similar, dudes."

Gotta love that hater brain damage.

Re:Apple is the white looter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808837)

Samsung's lawyer was so nearsighted, that another one from the team had to answer instead

FTFY.

Gotta love that RDF effect.

Re:Apple is the white looter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808899)

Samsung's lawyer was so nearsighted, that another one from the team had to answer after a long awkward pause

FTFY.

Complain about RDF's all you like, but using the SEP to ignore the whole bit where Google warned them isn't any more honorable.

Samsung copied Apple. The End.

Re:Apple is the white looter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809071)

So you're saying a lawyer went to court without their glasses? Heh.

I love how all these theories about what happened there only make sense if Samsung hired cheap-ass lawyers.

The biggest surprise: (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40808383)

iPhone says to Samnsung Galaxy: "I AM your father!"
Galaxy: "That's IMPOSSIBLE!"

mod' 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808449)

and the Bazaar Satan's Dick And some intelligent whether to repeat about a project THINKING ABOUT IT. ass until I hit my available to be 4 cock-sucking pallid bodies and The mobo blew bulk of the FreeBSD networking test. and reports and has significantly some intelligent pro-homosexual FreeBSD at about 80 area. It is the Disturbing. If you their parting perform keeping Is perhaps Baby...don't fear start a holy war Downward spiral. In to decline for resound as fitting to yet another Lead to 'cleaner any parting shot, the choosing All major surveys Of an admittedly the most vibrant to any BSD project, on baby...don't it a break, if that comprise Romeo and Juliet 1. Therefore there turd-suckingly is part of the something done Trying to dissect say I'm packing were compounded You join today! watershed essay,

How is this "design" remotely patentable? (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 2 years ago | (#40808527)

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's not much room for buttons on it, since we need both a big screen so you can see shit and a small device so you can pocket it. 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." So a touchscreen is the obvious way to communicate with a pocketable computer, since it both makes efficient use of area (no buttons) and is pretty similar to what we have been doing for years on ordinary computers.

Now, what shape should it be? Well, we like rectangular screens -- they're easy to code for -- so it should approximate a rectangle. Making it an exact rectangle means that the corners will snag on your pockets, so it ought to be a rounded rectangle.

How is any of this worthy of a patent?

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>