Apple's Schiller: 'Shocked' at Samsung's iPhone copying
Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, who took the stand very briefly at the <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264122==http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/31/samsung.legal.senior.partner.narrowly.avoids.censu re/" rel='nofollow'>Apple vs. Samsung</a> trial on Tuesday was interviewed again on Friday, including cross-examination by Samsung attorneys. Schiller gently rebuffed a question that would have revealed the company's plans for the next iPhone, but did disclose some information on iOS product sales, advertising budgets for Apple, and reiterations that Samsung had copied Apple's products.<br><br>The <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264129==http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/08/03/cameras.cars.among.early.suggestions/" rel='nofollow'>success of the iPod</a> led Apple to consider entering other fields, but executives noticed that they all had cell phones -- and all hated them. A decision that had been made to investigate multi-touch technology, which "nobody was really doing anything with" in pursuit of a possible tablet was re-directed to be used to develop a phone.
Apple's own lawyer led Schiller through a series of press notices, many of them commenting on the innovated design of the first iPhone -- not just the hardware but also the software of the device. Schiller noted that when Jobs died late last year, the US Patent Office <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264124==http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/11/23/jobs.listed.on.over.300.patents.and.trademarks/" rel='nofollow'>created an exhibit of Jobs' inventions and innovations</a>. The iPhone was used by the USPTO as a prime example.
When asked about iPhone sales, Schiller joked that the company originally used an internal metric of success that said that each new model should sell as many units as all previous generations combined. In fact, this is almost exactly what has happened -- Apple sold 93 million units in 2011, which is just over <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264125==http://www.mattrichman.net/post/16425003555/takeaways-from-apples-q4-2011" rel='nofollow'>all combined iPhone sales from 2007-2010</a>. He acknowledged the "lock-in" or "halo" effect of the iPhone -- since customers are likely to have a good experience with it, they are likely to buy another one when their contract is up.
In talking about the iPhone, Schiller opined -- and later pointed to charts documenting the fact -- that the primary reason people bought the iPhone was because "people find the design beautiful," rating the ease of use as the second most common factor. He added that Apple's expertise and combining hardware and software to work smoothly together creates an entire experience "that works well for the customer." He showed summaries of customer surveys done "from time to time" by his marketing team that found 85 percent of iPhone buyers rating the appearance and hardware design as "very important" or "important" to them.
Schiller recalled the doubts that many in the press and the industry had about the iPhone's ability to succeed. He specifically noted Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264126==http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/06/29/iphone-turns-5-here-are-the-naysayers/" rel='nofollow'>dismissal of the device</a>, as well as noting some negative reviews from existing phone manufacturers and pundits, but also mentioned positive write-ups from the time, including a glowing review from Walt Mossberg. When asked a similar question about the iPad, Schiller referred to it as "a big gamble" and said that many considered the tablet a failed product before Apple entered the market, and showed that Apple was willing to take a real risk that it would not be successful.
Early reviews of write-ups about the iPad were highly mixed, with many wondering how it would find an audience that already had computers and smartphones. Many professional technology pundits either panned or were <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264127==http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/24/sawhney" rel='nofollow'>openly skeptical</a> of its features, echoing the lukewarm reviews that the early iPod had received.
To market the products, Schiller says the company developed a concept called "product as hero," which meant that the device itself was the centerpoint of every ad. This is especially noticeable in the early iPhone ads, which show a disembodied hand running through the features and how to use them. Apple has made a DVD of all the iOS ads available for the jury to use.
Schiller mentioned how important targetted advertising and product placement in TV shows and movies had been to the company, and for the first time revealed specific figures on how much Apple had spent on advertising. The figures mentioned grew from under $100 million in 2008 to over $230 million in 2011. The iPad, separately, also got around $150 million in advertising in its debut year, and some $300 million in 2011. All told, Apple has spent over a billion dollars in advertising both products from launch to the present day, a fact he used to accuse Samsung of riding on the coattails of Apple's ability to attract publicity.
After lunch, Schiller was asked more specifically about Samsung's products, how familiar he was with them and so on. He said he was "pretty shocked" when the first Galaxy S model came out, <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264128==http://www.knowyourmobile.com/comparisons/517419/samsung_galaxy_s_vs_iphone_4.html" rel='nofollow'>closely resembling</a> -- both in form factor and on-screen display -- the iPhone. Schiller said the introduction of copycat products by Samsung caused problems for Apple in terms of marketing and customer confusion. He took pains to note that he was not against competition, saying that "every day" companies create and sell products that compete with Apple, but "they create their own unique solutions, their own unique designs. We let the customers decide who's right, who has the better products. That's fair competition."
He added that Samsung's more obvious copying was not "fair competition" because it "trades off all the investment and goodwill we've created ... you're taking the hundreds of millions we've invested in our products and all the value we've created." Schiller said he was even more shocked when Samsung came out with products like the Galaxy Tab that clearly imitated the iPad. "They're just going to copy our whole product line," he said he remembered thinking at the time.
Copycat products "makes our job as marketers more difficult, it confuses the customers [and] diminishes the value ... and dilutes the way customers see Apple." Schiller said it "absolutely" had an impact on sales, because once a customer has bought an Android product they are equally "locked in" to that eco-system as they would have been if they'd bought the iOS device.
Samsung's lawyer asked Schiller mostly about design elements, trying to get the Apple executive to admit that some features of the iPhone -- such as the on-screen keyboard -- were purely functional and not ornamental, a key tenet in Samsung's defense. He was similarly quizzed about the utility of rectangular shaped devices, rounded corners, touchscreens, and reminded that a handful of modern-style smartphones existed at or just before the iPhone came out, such as the LG Prada (which offered a large touchscreen but at a premium price). The Samsung attorney seemed determined to establish that once you have decided on a non-physical keyboard, many of the other elements of the iPhone (rectangular shape, touchscreen) become obvious. Schiller deflected the statements and questions.
Apple's claim of being first to market with some features was also challenged, with Schiller being shown an email from a colleague who points out that although Apple was the first to be successful with some technologies (such as multi-touch), it wasn't actually the first. Samsung's attorney also expressed doubt that consumers were very confused between the products, since smartphones still cost hundreds of dollars and consumers presumably weigh their choices carefully before signing a contract.
Under repeated questioning, Schiller maintained that consumers could be confused between Apple and Samsung devices through some types of advertising such as billboards, where consumers "only get a glimpse" of the product. He said that while a number of Samsung phones copied the iPhone, when asked about some specifics Schiller admitted that Samsung's four-button approach is different and "not as beautiful" as the iPhone's single-button approach.
At one point while being cross-examined, Samsung's attorney embarrassingly <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264121==https://twitter.com/reckless/status/231460348853645313" rel='nofollow'>mixed up</a> the models of Samsung phone he was giving Schiller to comment on. Schiller used the opportunity to tell the attorney that the mistake was natural, as Samsung's lineup "was confusing."
Schiller also admitted that many iPhone users have a bumper or case around their iPhone that obscures some of the distinctive design. The Samsung attorney tried to get Schiller to answer a question about design changes on the next version of the iPhone, but Apple's lawyers objected to the question and Schiller deflected, saying he didn't want to talk about confidential products. Samsung's lawyers didn't press the point.
" Apple has made a DVD of all the iOS ads available for the jury to use."
They probably had an old copy of iDVD lying around. Hooray for optical drives!
Schiller is blowing hot air. Apple's own iPhone was built on the look of one of Sony's phones. He's not shocked. Samsung is copying like Apple copies. There's nothing to be shocked about. Apple is simply executing Steve Jobs' vendetta and slinging a lot of mud at its #! competitor. Jobs dying gift to Apple was this vendetta and it is turning Apple nasty and ugly.
Those who'd like to follow this story from people who knows law should turn to:
This one explains why there's not the slightest chance Samsung will be sanctioned:
It's one illustration that Apple's simply yelling and throwing mud at a competitor.
The tech press, especially the Apple press, is way out of touch with reality on this, doing little more than echo Apple press releases. I saw the same thing happen with the Google Book Settlement, where I was one of seven authors whose court filing won a critical delay and led to Google's loss.
Then the tech press echoed Google press releases and gushed about a global library, ignorant of the fact that:
1. What Google was trying to do was a gross violation of the Berne Convention, which governs copyright in almost every country on the planet. That's why the judge ruled that Google could only display books when authors had opted-in, meaning given their permission.
2. Google's mass copyright theft only applied to US copyright and readers because that's all a U.S. court decision could impact. No global library of stolen books.
These clueless tech writers were left almost speechless when the DOJ filed a court brief against it, as did several major European countries (to protect their authors). Most still don't seem to understand why the court rejected the settlement. I ended up so disgusted with one dim-witted CNET reporter that I quit visiting CNET altogether. I concluded that if they get a story I understood that badly they were probably getting other stories badly wrong too.
My instinct is that the judge in this case is way over her head facing two high-powered legal teams and that to settle her mind, she's tilting heavily toward Apple, excluding contrary evidence. Samsung lawyers made this perfectly legal move, partly for publicity purposes and partly to provoke her to lay the groundwork for an appeal. They want her to behave badly and she's doing just that. A competent judge wouldn't have taken this long to rule that it's OK for Samsung to do what Apple is already doing--speak to public opinion. The jury has already been ordered not to read any media stories on this, so they not hearing Apple's spin and won't hear that from Samsung.
And yes, it is true that reporters rarely know much about law. But that's no excuse for the heavy Apple tilt we've been getting from the tech media. Those reporters could be taking the time to learn what they're writing about and if they haven't, they should say nothing. Thus far, they're behaving as ignorantly as they were during the Google Book Settlement debate and they're about as likely, now as then, to understand the final outcome.
Like I said, if you want to understand this case, follow it on Groklaw. There you'll get all the documents along with skilled legal commentary.
Can't wait for Apple to push the thermonuclear button on Samsung!
I see you're just repeating the usual android supporters cant.
Groklaw's coverage of this subject is at least as biased as Groklaw and it's readers think that Florian Muller's posts are.
Here is the thing:
Samsung undoubtedly copied Apple.
Even Google advised Samsung that they had crossed a line.
Samsung also decided to skin Android to make it look to the casual observer that it was running iOS, even going to far as to assigning similar colors and images to the icons on the machine. No other android OEM bothered to do that. If you cannot see that then you are just being blind.
"Like I said, if you want to understand this case, follow it on Groklaw."
What you are actually saying is that if you want to hear what the fandroids think then follow it on Groklaw.
You're wasting your time. He's damaged goods, consigned to a life of lies and mediocrity.
@ inkling re: "Apple's own iPhone was built on the look of one of Sony's phones."
And Sony's phones were all built on the look of iPod. You *do* remember iPod, don't you? The music player that killed Walkman? Yeah, that one.
Apple are whining like a bunch of babies in a sandbox. They don't have a case! Nobody, not 1 person, has been able to pinpoint what particular case Apple has.
What did Samsung specifically copy? What? And if they did appropriate something from Apple, is it fair to litigate against Samsung on it, or is it industry standard that competitors, including Apple, appropriate aspects of others' products?
Let me take you through a thought experiment. You are a company that makes cell phones. You've been doing it for years. Well before Apple. Can you make a cell phone that's unlike anything out there? How about a round crystal ball? How would that work out for you? It wouldn't. You would make a rectangular device, probably with rounded corners. Does that mean you're copying all of the other cell phones and the respective companies behind them? No, it doesn't, because this kind of design is like a steering wheel: nobody owns it and nobody should own it. And if anybody does own it, it's certainly not Apple: they are way, way late to the party.
There are so many phones that have come before the iPhone that have a rectangular design with rounded corners. What about iOS? Looking at the following picture, it's a blatant rip off of the Palm OS:
Look at that! A thin mobile device with a color touchscreen and grid of icons! Apple copied it! I mean, I'm a total Apple guy and develop software for iOS and OS X, but it's getting ridiculous. If Samsung is a copycat, so is Apple. I can't see anything but harm coming to Apple over this trial because there is no way they're going to win some monopoly over the design of the iPhone and the iPad. If they do, it means that every other company in this industry will be subject to Apple's monopoly, etc. over this.
And the damn Samsung Galaxy tablet design was on the market in 2006! Even though it was a digital picture frame, the design was out years ago. It simply makes no sense to dismiss this and say that the design that Samsung uses for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 came after the iPad. It's not true. Samsung has prior art.
LG Prada touchscreen phone:
2004 Nokia phone with touchscreen (stylus and finger input):
2005 Nokia Internet tablet:
2007 Nokia Internet tablet:
2003 O2 XDA touchscreen smartphone:
Nokia also had an App Store for phones back in 2005.
Then there's tablets... the Palm GridPad from the late 80s:
Alan Kay's Dynabook (1968... full description and drawings of a tablet computer):
The numerous Star Trek and Sci Fi tablet computers from decades past: somebody had to design those and Apple CANNOT claim to be first on the design. Therefore, they should NOT be allowed to own the tablet design. It is NOT their original design.
Then there's Nokia pioneering internal antennaes on cell phones. An engineer, back in the 90s, wrapped copper wire inside a prototype phone and had a working cell phone with no protruding antennae. He showed it to the Execs and they were worried about the minimal design. That people wouldn't think they were getting a real cell phone.
Nokia holds a ton of patents on mobile phones. Should they sue Apple for using an internal antennae? An App Store? Should Palm sue over the use of a grid of icons with a mobile touchscreen operating system? Should Samsung sue over memory patents? Should O2 sue over a smartphone design: a large touchscreen device that is rectangle with rounded corners?
I mean... Schiller... He believes that A. Samsung copied their design B. It hurt their sales because of consumer confusion. However, it is not clear what Samsung copied and it is not clear exactly how the sales were hurt. There is no real evidence other than Schiller pounding his fist. The courts and Apple first need to establish A. And if they do, they then need to establish B. Either of these has a bunch of questions. I don't see any real evidence and I think that this will end bad for Apple because of this.
I don't know what to say about the article.
All I came here to say is that the new forum-based comment system is horrid and makes trying to follow a conversation below the article on macnn next to impossible.
Either this Schiller is stupid or he acts as stupid, what a bunch of senseless. I am ashamed of Apple role
The case is that while companies copy aspects of each others products, Samsung copied multiple if not every possible aspect of the iPhone. No-one can reasonably deny that the iPhone was a highly original, ground-breaking, revolutionary product. Nothing that came before it was very like it at all. Now all smartphones except some Blackberries are very like it. You'll notice that Apple are not going after other companies anywhere near as much as they are going after Samsung.
Look at the Lumia 900, it looks like an old iPod Mini, but its a phone, not a music player and has a touchscreen. Its quite significantly different from the iPod Mini. Result: Apple hasn't sued Nokia for it.
Samsung didn't just copy one phone, they copied the whole product line. Its basically one step short of counterfeiting. They have actively tried to market their own line as a cheaper alternative to Apple. They have basically tried to imply that their products are the same only cheaper.
Given that Samsung makes some of the components for Apple such as the CPUs, flash and LCD screens for various iOS devices, they clearly had some inside info about some of Apple's products before other competitors did. This is another reason Apple has gone after them so strongly. If Apple had another immediate choice for these components, Samsung would never have dared this blatant copying spree.
Legally, Apple may not be on the firmest possible ground. Morally they are absolutely in the right. Its obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that Samsung has ripped them off and tried to ride on the coat tails of their success.
A grid of icons? Ya, good luck with that.
A rounded rectangle? Even more good lick with that.
And the idea that the Galaxy S is a rip off of the iPhone. Demonstrate how it is. Looking at both units side by side there are many differences from the plastic back, to the look and feel.
And you know what's even more laughable? Apple is whining about Smasung's marketshare now. They never had this current marketshare when they started with the Galaxy S. The phones that are getting them this marketshare look nothing like an iPhone.
It's Android! Not Samsung. Samsung just happens to make the best Android devices. And if you're going to argue that Samsung got to the position today by ripping off Apple, you've got a lot of work to do to demonstate it.
"They never had this market share when they started with the Galaxy S...."
You are answering your own questions here. They started with the Galaxy S and now they have a much bigger marketshare. Apple's contention is that this is because the Galaxy range was closely copied from the iPhone.
To the layperson, these handsets look a hell of a lot like iPhones. They even dropped their logo for the second one.
A grid of icons? Similar colours and styles of icon? Glass fronted rectangle? Rounded corners? Very few buttons? Multi touch? Full featured browser?
All these features have been copied by numerous other makers but Samsung copied them all at the same time. That is Apple's point here. All their other suits are on specific patent infringements. This is the only one of its type that I know of.
Also, I don't think Samsung can sue Apple on memory patents when you consider that the flash memory in iPhones is almost entirely Samsungs.
You may have forgotten the Newton among some of your examples too. Not that it matters, its not about a single patent or technology, its about the complete package. By making their tablets part of their galaxy phone range instead of a separate range of products, and by making those ads that insult iPhone users, they have actively demonstrated that they want to steal Apple customers.
I can't imagine Apple would stand a chance in most courts and I'm surprised they have done as well as they seem to so far but like I say, morally they are right. You know as well as I do that Samsung set out to copy Apple. Everyone did, its just the rest made more effort to differentiate, weren't ripping off ideas and designs from their best customer, and weren't insulting their best customer's customers.
It was a good decision in terms of products for Samsung, but in the long run it was a foolish business decision. If I were Tim Cook, I'd be putting new suppliers in place for everything I was buying from Samsung the second existing deals expire. Hynix and LG will be rubbing their hands gleefully.
If you ask me, the whole "rounded rectangle with just a big screen with a bezel and nothing else" reminds me more of a digital picture frame's design than anything else:
You say to the layperson these handsets look a hell of a lot like the iPhone. Yet, you have ZERO market research and survey data to back this up. In other words, it looks like the iPhone to the rest of the world because you say it does.
You MUST demonstrate in court that first it does in fact look just like the iPhone and then demonstrate confusion in the market. Demonstrating this latter is via hiring market research firms to conduct the surveys with consumers to see if they are confused. The data must be reliable. None of this has been brought up in court yet, it's all conjecture from Apple which is what makes me laugh. Little whining children yelling and screaming with nothing to back it up.
And if I were asked in the survey, I'd say it looks similar to the iPhone but different. Different enough that I know they're not the same device. The problem with people like you is you assume the world is dumb. That you are smarter than them or have some special consumer tech knowledge that others don't. I've got some news for you: we live in an information age. People read and have access to the same sources of information as you. We live in a technocracy. To assume people are that unaware that they don't know the difference between an iPhone and a Galaxy S or other smartphones for that matter is absurd.
We need data to demonstrate confusion, not subjective conjecture.
Here's the first iPhone by the way: in many respects, it's much different than the Galaxy S. The S has a chizeled bezel that's powder black and a black plastic back with ridges. It looks and feels different than an iPhone 1 as well as any other iPhone for that matter.
The other thing is not to confuse similiarities between Android - a grid of color icons - and Samsung's gear. Samsung didn't develop Android.
"A grid of icons? Similar colours and styles of icon?"
This is NOT Samsung, this is the maker of the software: Google with Android. Even though Samsung can customize the software, Android is effectively the exact same OS as iOS: it's a multi-touch operating system with a grid of color icons. This is not Samsung who made this software and this has nothing to do with Samsung copying Apple.
"Glass fronted rectangle? Rounded corners? Very few buttons?"
Everything you just described is NOT original to Apple. The O2 XDA from 2003 had all of these features, as did several other smartphones from Sony and Nokia before the iPhone. Therefore, Apple is NOT the originator of these attributes of a phone. Listen to yourself. Rounded corners... LOL. Imagine if Apple had a monopoly over a rounded rectangle phone. Everyone would have to pay them a licensing fee to use this design. But no competent court would EVER grant Apple some broadsweeping patent relating to a rounded rectangle design because Apple was no where with a gazillion miles of being first to design this. Countless others before them have. It's a steering wheel and it's absurd for anyone to think Apple should own this design. It'll never happen and they're just wasting everyone's time and looking foolish.
"Multi touch? Full featured browser?"
Now this is where Apple did innovation on their own. There wasn't really a multi-touch smartphone out there before the iPhone, although there was touchscreen smartphones with finger input. However, both of these points have ZERO to do with Samsung. Nothing. Zip. It's ANDROID, the software, and Samsung does not make the software, Google does.
"All these features have been copied by numerous other makers but Samsung copied them all at the same time."
It's pretty obvious at this point to you I'm sure that this conclusion is incorrect.
Apple is NOT the originator of the mobile operating system with a grid of icons. No, the Newton wasn't either. There were numerous "PDAs" out before the Newton that used a grid of icons (calculator, calendar, etc.). And Palm was the one who put a color grid of icons on a small, thin mobile device before anyone else did.
Apple is NOT the originator of a phone that is a rectangle with rounded corners. Many phones have the exact same form factor that came well before the iPhone. When it comes to smartphones, the O2 XDA from 2003 carries all of the characteristics of a rectangle with rounded corners and a large touchscreen.
I'm sorry but even though I'm crazy about Apple, for all of these reasons and more, in the end, I don't think they have 1 leg to stand on here. Even if this judgment is in their favor, Samsung will appeal to higher courts and there this case will be dismissed and Apple will end up having to pay all of Samsung's legal bills. There's just no real evidence showing that Samsung copied them and confusion in the market. And there's no evidence Apple's sales are hurt. None. Zero. It's just hand waving by Apple and it's starting to embarrass me.
And the whole argument that Samsung gained all of this momentum in the market because of the Galaxy S, etc. is absurd. There is ZERO data to support that. But there is data to support that Samsung has gained this momentum because Android has. It is Android that has exploded on the market. And the fact that people keep buying up Android from different handset makers and its sustained marketshare demonstrates that it's not Samsung that put Android on the map, it's Android on its own. HTC has ridden this wave as well and exploded for a few years.
And Samsung's phones are so different than Apple's today yet people keep buying them more than ever. It implies that the devices themselves have merits outside of the iPhone. That they're different and people buy them.
So then why doesn't Apple just go after Google since Android seems to be at the heart of all of this? They could try, but how far would they get? Grid of icons? Nope, Apple is NOT the originator of that. The only thing they could litigate on is multi-touch patents, and that would be interesting to see.
Phil Schiller is shocked, shocked at copying in the tech industry!
And so, I'm sure, was Xerox PARC!
I'm surprised that Schiller would be shocked at Samsung copying them. I'd always thought that copying successful products was very commonplace in all sorts of industries. It's usually the most efficient way to keep up with the competition. I thought the formula was to copy and and one more feature that the company you're copying so you can say you have a better product. The irony of the matter is Apple gave Samsung all that business and handed over all the plans to the iPhone and then Samsung turns around and stabs Apple in the back by building clone smartphones. I guess the best rule in business is to trust no one. Now Samsung is kicking the market share crap out of Apple and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
But beyond that, I enjoyed the rest of your post though I disagree with your overall conclusions. I think your experience with the Google court action has severely coloured your ability to be objective on the role of the press -- or Apple -- on this case.
Apple did not steal PARC technology -- they licensed it, and later recruited many PARC engineers and scientists to come and work for Apple where they were appreciated (as opposed to Xerox, who didn't appreciate what it had).
I know Fictional Bill Gates in that Pirates Movie would have you believe otherwise, but Fictional Bill Gates lies a lot. And is fictional. And Malcolm Gladwell? Let's just say he's entertaining but not infallible.
If you are interested in the truth (which I'm hopeful you are), you can check out the real story here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=mXnw5tM8QRwC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=apple+co nfidential+Xerox+PARC&source=bl&ots=PxHq5Zbq2M&sig =yzV8QDCEirzAliEPcMP-UnS2OJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KhUeUIGkLsiEjALU_4DYDQ&ved=0 CFUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=apple%20confidential%20Xero x%20PARC&f=false
What you've said is effectively zero. You haven't addressed what has been posted in this thread regarding a ton of prior art that should invalidate Apple's claims to being the originator of said art.
Let me put it to you another way: Sony was making phones when Apple was in diapers.
And if you want to play the "I had a prototype first game", you and Apple are going to lose. Nokia, for instance, has had incredible prototype phones that they've showed off to the public for over 10 years.
On prior touchscreen smartphones with Apps, the Sony P800 from 2003 was the bomb:
As was the P910i from 2004 with a full touchscreen and running Symbian. Worked with Nokia's App Store! These things can surf the Web, albeit dated now, play videos, games, use finger gestures to zoom into pictures and pan around, and more.
Should Sony sue Apple over a touchscreen smartphone that is a rounded rectangle?
Should NEC sue Apple over the design of the MacBook: A folding keyboard and screen that they were first to market with in 1989: the inventors of the modern day laptop?
Should MP3 player makers prior to the iPod sue Apple over a device that "plays and manages MP3s on memory storage in a portable device?"
While Xerox licensed their software to Apple, should they sue Apple over the hardware? The design of the personal computer? A bitmap screen, mouse, and keyboard?
This starts to get ridiculous. Apple has simply thrown itself into a rabbit hole with no way out now...
Apple didn't lose in 1994 because their patents were invalid, or because their infringement claim wasn't enforceable.
They lost because of a licensing agreement made ten years earlier.
The court decision is based on a technicality, not a principle.
But anyway, this says nothing about whether they would have won or not strictly on the GUI alone.
But looking at the way things are today, and the court documents from that case, the judge was well aware of the implications of granting a broad patent and upholding it for the GUI. He saw major problems with that.
The way things are today, nobody has a patent on the GUI: anyone can use a GUI for their software, including Websites without paying licensing fees. The whole idea of patenting the GUI and locking it down is long gone. It's a steering wheel now, as is a rounded rectangle mobile phone and touchscreens.
Well, the jury's still out on the phone thing, isn't it?
FWIW, I can fully understand where Apple is coming from. The first time I ever saw that legendary first Galaxy, it was on a big sticker on the shop window of a telecoms store for a carrier I knew not to have the iPhone yet.
I saw it out of the corner of my eye on the way to work, and stopped, surprised. It wasn't until I took a second look at it that I realized that it was a copy, with a differently shaped home button and slightly different icons.
It was deliberately designed to have a "hey, here too!" effect at a time when carrier exclusivity was still a hindrance to iPhone ownership.
It is this deliberate engineering to be mistaken at first glance for the "original" that Apple is complaining about.
It's not the "flat rectangle". It's the combination of bezels, metal parts, glass parts, colors, and shapes.
Same goes for the GUI.
Claiming that Samsung didn't specifically engineer their phones to as closely resemble iPhones at first glance as possible is preposterous.
And the fact that everybody else does the same thing now is a result of Samsung taking the lead in trying to get away with it, and not an indication of the basic design being generic, and thus acceptable cloning.
Those of you who are disagreeing with me could at least have the decency to read my posts before you disagree with them.
I clearly stated above that Apple is not going after Samsung because of this patent or that patent or this feature or that feature. Its because Samsung has used so many of them on one range of devices. Others have also copied most of these features, but not all at once and they have done other things differently to deliberately differentiate their copies from Apple products. Samsung did design the icons they used on their version of Android btw. They also chose to use Android when they could have made their own OS or licensed WebOS or Windows mobile or something else.
I MUST NOT prove anything to anyone in court. I stated at least once already that I am surprised that Apple is getting anywhere with this in court. Legally it looks very shaky to me but morally, Apple is right. The whole world and his mother can see that the Galaxy is a rip off of the iPhone. Samsung changed their whole smartphone philosophy after they saw the iPhone and how good and successful it was. Every smartphone maker did (except maybe RIM and look whats happened there). I am glad the court seems to be siding with Apple.
I have news for you: The world IS dumb. Just because you can spot an extra button on a handset from a hundred yards and think that makes all the difference in the world doesn't mean everyone else does. Most people stumble blindly through life and lets face it, if they could really tell the difference that easily, a good deal more of them would buy iPhones than already do. If someone with Spheric's technical knowledge can be fooled for a second, then someone without it can be fooled long enough to part with their cash. Especially by a motivated salesperson on a good commission.
Your fixation on patents is misplaced. Its not the issue here. Why aren't you asking about the estate of Alexander Graham Bell? Surely they should be suing everyone for every phone ever made? Or maybe the descendants of the first caveman to invent speech? We should all be paying them royalties shouldn't we?
Freudling, you really shouldn't be accusing people of just wanting to argue for the sake of it. I also think your claim that you are "crazy about Apple" is interesting. I don't recall the last time you made a post that wasn't critical of them. You don't like Tim Cook, you think the company is doomed without Jobs. You don't think they are right to fight Samsung on this, it sounds like you'd support Google if they went after Android, you say they deserved to lose in '94 against M$, you love Windows phone 7 and Nokia handsets and complain about iPhones frequently. You don't like Lion and presumably Mountain Lion and you had a laundry list of complaint about the rMBP too. If you are "crazy about Apple" I can only assume you mean that you are obsessed with criticising everything they do to the point of craziness. The evidence on this forum would seem to support me on this. And would probably stand up in court better than anything Apple is bringing to Samung.
And there is no data that shows it's all because of Samsung that other handset makers make multi-touch phones. In fact, it's plain wrong because other handsets with mutli-touch came out prior to the Galaxy S.
The LG Prada in 2007 before the iPhone hit store shelves:
And designing your own icons? So is Microsoft to be sued because the icons in Windows look and act just like some icons in OS X? Is HP Palm to sue Apple because of a grid of icons that launch applications in a mobile operating system? And what would using WebOS do? It's a grid of icons, essentially the Palm OS and looks, feels, and functions exactly like iOS and Android. There's no difference.
Tim Cook is wrong for Apple. Nobody listens to me. He's wrong and he's going to destroy it. He has no personality. He's not a product or relationship guy.
Palm got the icon grid from the Newton. People somehow always forget the Newton. Can't remember who made that, now...but I'm pretty sure HP/Palm couldn't sue anyone due to that prior art. So *should* they? Um, what?
This is my point. Apple going after Samsung because their icons have a similar look to Apple's is absurd. Should Apple sue App Developers because their icons have the same look as their own? Even though it's on Apple's platform, infringement is infringement. They're calling Susan Kare to the stand, an ancient icon creator for the original Mac? This is ridiculous. They're appealing to some cult fanboy mentality yet ignore all legal precedents set on GUI stuff and fail to recognize that they themselves are not the originators of much of what they claim to be. All of this is fact and indisputable.
You can't sue for this stuff is the point, but Apple still thinks they can. And this trial is like the MS one all over again and I'm 99% certain it'll have the same result. If Apple wins the precedent it'll set is that Apple will have some claim to a monopoly over iOS icons, rounded rectangle phones with a touchscreen, etc. It won't happen.
And NO, the Newton was NOT the first to have a grid of icons on a mobile device. Period. Apple is NOT the originator of this.
One example: Psion Series 3 1991:
It was the Psion OS that evolved into Symbian, and Symbian set the bar for smartphones in the early 2000s. Unfortunately, the Pison in the early 90s never caught on in the US and neither did Symbian. But Symbian exploded in many other countries and had, for several years, the most global marketshare of any phone OS.
The HP 95LX from 1991:
Then there's the Zeros Pocket PC from 1992:
I could go on...
Apple lost because of a previous licensing agreement (dating back to the early 80s). Not because anything was deemed generic.
Xerox PARC didn't enter into the equation at all, as a) Apple paid them for their technology, and b) THAT particular lawsuit was thrown out of court due to the statute of limitations for their claims having expired.
I have, and the several years this case went on, all of the stuff I mentioned about it and more was part of the case.
All of this is a fact: a matter of public record. Go and research then come back and talk about it.
Second. The point is that Apple was not given a monopoly on the GUI. And the other point is that they are NOT the originators of any of it.
I really don't want to get bogged down in the old case along with the current one but my understanding is that Apple licensed something to Microsoft then sued them for using it and thats the reason that Sculley has been lampooned ever since. It hardly matters anyway, for that case to match this one, MS would have had to copy hardware as well as software.
Back to the Samsung case, I really don't know why you can't seem to get what I say through your head. Its not about a single patent. Its about a bunch of them and the sum of those parts. Technical patent disputes don't require public surveys, design disputes do. I know what the law requires to prove a case of this sort and I agree that Apple should struggle to provide that proof. This is the THIRD TIME I'VE SAID IT NOW. For some reason you are refusing to look at the matter from a common sense, non-legal point of view. When you do that, its obvious that Samsung copied the iPhone and no matter how many times you say you disagree with that, I'm not going to buy it. You clearly aren't that stupid, you are just set on arguing to the contrary and thats what you are going to do come hell or high water. Its like being in the PWL in this thread.
True, Sculley did let that legal clause slip, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway due to the courts conclusion on GUIs in the industry.
Second, it is NOT clear that Samsung copied Apple. Nobody has given a list of specifically what they copied. AND, if they did copy anything, is it illegal?
I mean, I copied the look and feel of a competitors button for our site. Should they sue me? It's our brand's colors though with differences. Should someone own a monopoly over a leather button with a drop shadow and inner glow? No, they shouldn't because people would be infringing on others' design constantly. That's why the courts view the minds of stuff Apple keeps bringing up as steering wheels.
Apple as you agree needs to demonstrate beyond a doubt confusion in the market and what that means fiscally. This will be no easy task and the way things look even if by some miracle they get a judgement in their favor it's not going to be much.
By the way, Sculley screwed Apple because he wasted billions of dollars in R&D money with hardly any output. He got Apple into its financial mess of the 90s. The Newton itself sucked close to $1 billion and generated less than $200 million in revenues throughout its lifespan.
There is a difference between something not being clear and it being difficult to prove in court. It is pretty clear, but proof will be tough.
Apple...? Absurd?.... You don't say..... :lol:
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:49 AM.||
Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.