Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   132-page internal Samsung document unveiled in court, in which Samsung expressly states how much they love Apple's designs, and that they need to copy it. Nail, meet coffin   (gizmodo.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Samsung, documents  
•       •       •

3543 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Aug 2012 at 11:08 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-08 12:34:20 PM  

OriginalGamer: Samsung responds to Apple's claims/a>


The shameful thing is that in that skit, they displayed the very same fraudulent doctored product comparison shots that Apple got busted for by a European court:
BS phone comparison
BS tablet comparison
 
2012-08-08 12:35:09 PM  

digistil: joeshill: What is truly amazing is that Apple is continuing to use Samsung's technology patents, without paying for them (just about every other phone manufacturer cross-licenses all of their technology patents with each other - Apple refuses to), and that they continue to get away with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they (Apple) buy the parts (with the Samsung patents in question) through Qualcomm, legally and legitimately? As do many other smart phone manufacturers?


Yes. Qualcomm (now owned by Intel) has already paid Samsung for the use of the patents in question. The cost is included in the price Apple pays to Qualcomm for the chips.

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

Apple has purchased chips whose manufacturers already license the patents in question. Samsung will have a hard time getting any court to allow them to double dip.
 
2012-08-08 12:35:19 PM  
App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

www.photokina-show.com
 
2012-08-08 12:37:07 PM  

OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]


Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.
 
2012-08-08 12:37:52 PM  

joeshill: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: joeshill: If "Black reflects less glare" is a valid reason for a black bezel, or "because we need something to hold the screen in place, and this is the most economical, in terms of both space and cost." is a valid reason for a black bezel, then it is a functional advantage, and not protected by a design patent.

Was the black bezel even covered by any patent? I get the impression that Apple is trying to defend design aspects that were never patented in the first place (though would be no more ridiculous than their existing patents if they were). I thought they were just trying to establish a pattern of behavior (i.e., companies draw inspiration from prior products, which is kind of silly as every company on the planet does this, including Apple).

Very well could be. Though I'm following the trial, I haven't had time to dig through all of the filings. From the trial reports, it does seem like Apple is trying to overreach on every bit of this.

Here is the actual design patent:


Oh, I'm familiar with that patent. Ain't it horrid? No mention of size, no mention of color, and Samsung didn't even copy the measurement ratios (which are all that could be inferred from it).

It's like they wanted to patent minimalism, the very LACK of features.
 
2012-08-08 12:38:35 PM  
Can't read it, but I imagine it's a competitive product review. These kinds of documents are pretty common when trying to sell new projects to the execs. The idea is to convince the powers that be that your current product line is deficient in some way, and to illustrate how and in what ways competitors are doing things better than you. This gets execs in an uproar, and projects get funded.

Nothing new here, except to people who don't understand how project management works.
 
2012-08-08 12:39:25 PM  

Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.


Was it patented? Yes/no?
 
2012-08-08 12:42:52 PM  
Gizmodo is in full on Apple White Knight mode today.

Still getting an SIII.
 
2012-08-08 12:43:39 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Was it patented? Yes/no?


Does it matter? I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious thievery. Legal or no, patent or no, mindless Apple haters cannot seem to grasp this concept.
 
2012-08-08 12:44:46 PM  
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Was it patented? Yes/no?


Oh, it's only a matter of time before they try to patent the cardboard box. Picture of product overlayed on a white background? Lawsuit!
 
2012-08-08 12:45:24 PM  

BullBearMS: digistil: joeshill: What is truly amazing is that Apple is continuing to use Samsung's technology patents, without paying for them (just about every other phone manufacturer cross-licenses all of their technology patents with each other - Apple refuses to), and that they continue to get away with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they (Apple) buy the parts (with the Samsung patents in question) through Qualcomm, legally and legitimately? As do many other smart phone manufacturers?

Yes. Qualcomm (now owned by Intel) has already paid Samsung for the use of the patents in question. The cost is included in the price Apple pays to Qualcomm for the chips.

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

Apple has purchased chips whose manufacturers already license the patents in question. Samsung will have a hard time getting any court to allow them to double dip.


Now you're forcing me to learn things.

Okay, so my take on this, and I'll admit that it's based on like 12 minutes of reading, is that Samsung holds Standard Essential Patents, which are essentially patents on how specific standards (such as 3g, 4g, network traffic, etc) work. These patents are what make specific transmission standards possible. The chips contain part of the implementation of these standards, and any patent on the how the chip works is exhausted when Apple buys the chips from an authorized seller. What isn't exhausted is the underlying SEP (which probably also covers things like how the software protocols for connecting/handshaking work). Apple acknowledges that Samsung owns the SEP, yet refuses to license it from Samsung because they say that Samsung is asking too much money for them.
 
2012-08-08 12:46:46 PM  
Gaboo: I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious thievery. Legal or no, patent or no, mindless Apple haters cannot seem to grasp this concept.

And idiotic Apple fanbois cannot grasp the inanity of claiming ownership of placing a picture of your product on the front of your product package.
 
2012-08-08 12:48:16 PM  

mdking09: ...so either this judge has already made up her mind to side with the American company over the Korean company...


You can stop there. This judge has previously placed injunctions against Samsung in this matter and taken their lawyer to the woodshed. Not an impartial body at all.
 
2012-08-08 12:50:38 PM  

Gaboo: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Was it patented? Yes/no?

Does it matter? I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious thievery. Legal or no, patent or no, mindless Apple haters cannot seem to grasp this concept a giant troll.

 
2012-08-08 12:51:59 PM  

Gaboo: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Was it patented? Yes/no?

Does it matter? I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious thievery. Legal or no, patent or no, mindless Apple haters cannot seem to grasp this concept.


The entire issue is whether or not a law was broken. "Thievery" implies illegality. If you're going to sit here and claim Apple has never leveraged existing design influences in their own products, you're foolish. I know they've programmed their fans via marketing that they are "different", but marketing != reality. For example, the minimalist "on white plain" style is hardly an Apple concept. Are you saying that because they *may* have been the first to do it on a phone box is really that important? Are you going to then similarly begrudge Apple for not being the first to release a touch screen phone?
 
2012-08-08 12:54:08 PM  
GOSH, I sure do hate people who use products made by [company A]! They are just the worst! [Company A]'s morals and ethics are just beyond criminal! I hate them ever so much!

But [Company B]'s products are so much better. They are good, and righteous. By buying [Company B]'s products I am making a statement, standing up against the evil that is [Company A]! That makes me a good person! In fact, I love [Company B] so very much that I will take precious moments out of my life and post comments on the internet deriding and making broad ad hominems about [Company A]'s customers!

/ If you *really* think that the shiat that Apple and Samsung are doing is egregious, I'd just like to remind you of Libor, credit default swaps, trillion-dolar bailouts. Hell, go back to the S&L scandals in the 80's. Or hey, let's shift gears and talk BP and the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Chevron's Brazilian disaster, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

People get worked up about shiat that doesn't farking matter. It's consumer electronics. Have some farking priorities.
 
2012-08-08 12:54:16 PM  
How the fark can you patent a common shape?

That's it... I'm filing a patent on the rectangular shape of an LED, LCD, or plasma monitor.
 
2012-08-08 12:56:53 PM  
Let's see..."white plain" background, the implications of "simple", and boy that font looks similar to...

OH MY GOD, HONDA SHOULD SUE APPLE!
www.hondainthenews.com
 
2012-08-08 12:58:11 PM  

Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.


Great, now Apple will try to patent the white box.
 
2012-08-08 12:58:51 PM  

joeshill: What isn't exhausted is the underlying SEP


Those Standards Essential Patents are implemented in hardware by the chip itself.

Another legal concept you should learn is that Standards Essential Patents are required to be licensed on FRAND terms. (Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory)

When the required standards for interoperable devices are being created, all the patents holders in question are required to agree to license their patents on FRAND terms, or their patent will not be included in the standard.

Samsung is trying to use patents they have publicly committed to licensing on FRAND terms as a weapon. The EU is already investigating them for antitrust for this reason. Since the EU fines you ten percent of all your profits if you're found guilty of antitrust, it's kind of a big deal.
 
2012-08-08 12:59:49 PM  

PsyLord: How the fark can you patent a common shape?

That's it... I'm filing a patent on the rectangular shape of an LED, LCD, or plasma monitor.


Here's the response you'll get, if any:
"But it's the TOTALITY of the patent that matters! All the stuff! You know...the things!"

You'll never get one of 'em to admit that that patent doesn't say sh*t.
 
2012-08-08 01:02:36 PM  

H31N0US: Gizmodo is in full on Apple White Knight mode today everyday.

Still getting an SIII.


Applemodo
 
2012-08-08 01:10:42 PM  

BullBearMS: joeshill: What isn't exhausted is the underlying SEP

Those Standards Essential Patents are implemented in hardware by the chip itself.

Another legal concept you should learn is that Standards Essential Patents are required to be licensed on FRAND terms. (Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory)

When the required standards for interoperable devices are being created, all the patents holders in question are required to agree to license their patents on FRAND terms, or their patent will not be included in the standard.

Samsung is trying to use patents they have publicly committed to licensing on FRAND terms as a weapon. The EU is already investigating them for antitrust for this reason. Since the EU fines you ten percent of all your profits if you're found guilty of antitrust, it's kind of a big deal.


I'm not sure about what Samsung is trying to charge for their FRAND patents, but if it's the same as everyone else, Apple can't refuse on basis of cost in that case, because the prices being the same are "non-discriminatory". Just because you don't like what they are charging, does not mean that it violates FRAND.

That said, I'm not familiar with what Samsung wants to charge Apple. I do disagree with their assessment that Apple is not covered under buying chips from Qualcomm and inheriting the license that way. But I also feel that the design patents that Apple has are way too broad, and should never have been granted in the first place. Software patents, as well, should never have been granted. The comparison of the Galaxy S to the iPhone, with all the editing done to both phones to make them look similar is stupid. They don't look AT ALL that close coontil you photoshop the aspect ratio, remove logos, remove cameras, etc.), and the Galaxy S is the visual successor to the F700.

All I can hope for is that this trial ends with neither side winning their respective claims of patent infringement, and the patent systems complete overhaul.

Disclosure: I have an iPod Touch, and I have a Droid2 Global. I use my Android phone as my media player now, and the iPod is gathering dust, and I'll probably end up giving it to my nephew who has wanted one.
 
2012-08-08 01:13:34 PM  
The iPhone is a nice looking phone and at one time I wanted one. As I compared my Android to iPhones owned by people I know, it changed my mind. The iPhone doesn't seem as intuitive and its basic non-App functionality is not as advanced as my Galaxy SII. It seems like a more primitive device all around. I really feel if the iPhone did not have the "Apple" branding and fan base but had to compete on merit, it would have about the same market share as the Windows phone.
 
2012-08-08 01:14:00 PM  
Looks to me like Apple's beef is more with Google/Android, than with Samsung.
 
2012-08-08 01:16:06 PM  

BullBearMS: joeshill: What isn't exhausted is the underlying SEP

Those Standards Essential Patents are implemented in hardware by the chip itself.

Another legal concept you should learn is that Standards Essential Patents are required to be licensed on FRAND terms. (Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory)

When the required standards for interoperable devices are being created, all the patents holders in question are required to agree to license their patents on FRAND terms, or their patent will not be included in the standard.

Samsung is trying to use patents they have publicly committed to licensing on FRAND terms as a weapon. The EU is already investigating them for antitrust for this reason. Since the EU fines you ten percent of all your profits if you're found guilty of antitrust, it's kind of a big deal.


FRAND raises a whole other set of issues. Where it looks like Samsung and Motorola got into trouble was when Apple balked at Samsungs offer, and counter offered, Samsung (and Motorola) went to court and asked for an injunction against the phone sales. What an injunction implies is that by Apple selling its phone without paying fair (whatever they may turn out to be) royalties, the harm is so great to Samsung that it cannot be fixed by paying money. (An injunction says - unless we stop x, something so bad will happen that we can't fix it merely by the payment of money.).

And that's where Samsung (and Motorola) stopped being "fair and reasonable". If money cannot fix the licensing terms, then there's an implied lack of willingness to be "fair and reasonable".

It really doesn't touch on the validity of the patents, or exhaustion of the patent. It's an entirely different can of worms.

As the late Rodney King said...
 
2012-08-08 01:18:46 PM  

tgambitg: I'm not sure about what Samsung is trying to charge for their FRAND patents, but if it's the same as everyone else, Apple can't refuse on basis of cost in that case, because the prices being the same are "non-discriminatory"


Here's what they had to say on the matter in the EU.:

"The European Commission has opened a formal investigation" the EC said today in a statement, "to assess whether Samsung Electronics has abusively, and in contravention of a commitment it gave to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), used certain of its standard essential patent rights to distort competition in European mobile device markets, in breach of EU antitrust rules."


It's already come out that Samsung wanted to charge Apple much more than the entire cost of the chip from Qualcomm (which already includes the cost of licensing Samsung's patents in the first place).

This hardly meets FRAND terms.

Samsung has screwed the pooch on this one. As Microsoft has already learned, when they say they fine you ten percent of your total profits for violating their Antitrust laws, they aren't playing around.
 
2012-08-08 01:21:52 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Great, now Apple will try to patent the white box.


I believe the Queen has one of those.
 
2012-08-08 01:22:07 PM  

tgambitg: BullBearMS: joeshill: What isn't exhausted is the underlying SEP

Those Standards Essential Patents are implemented in hardware by the chip itself.

Another legal concept you should learn is that Standards Essential Patents are required to be licensed on FRAND terms. (Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory)

When the required standards for interoperable devices are being created, all the patents holders in question are required to agree to license their patents on FRAND terms, or their patent will not be included in the standard.

Samsung is trying to use patents they have publicly committed to licensing on FRAND terms as a weapon. The EU is already investigating them for antitrust for this reason. Since the EU fines you ten percent of all your profits if you're found guilty of antitrust, it's kind of a big deal.

I'm not sure about what Samsung is trying to charge for their FRAND patents, but if it's the same as everyone else, Apple can't refuse on basis of cost in that case, because the prices being the same are "non-discriminatory". Just because you don't like what they are charging, does not mean that it violates FRAND.

That said, I'm not familiar with what Samsung wants to charge Apple. I do disagree with their assessment that Apple is not covered under buying chips from Qualcomm and inheriting the license that way. But I also feel that the design patents that Apple has are way too broad, and should never have been granted in the first place. Software patents, as well, should never have been granted. The comparison of the Galaxy S to the iPhone, with all the editing done to both phones to make them look similar is stupid. They don't look AT ALL that close coontil you photoshop the aspect ratio, remove logos, remove cameras, etc.), and the Galaxy S is the visual successor to the F700.

All I can hope for is that this trial ends with neither side winning their respective claims of patent infringement, and the patent systems complete overhaul.

Disclosure: I ha ...


Equal Disclosure:

I own an Apple iPad (series 1). It sits on a shelf. It's too fragile for me to want to take it out in the world. I have always hated the restrictions on app-developers.
I own a Droid 2 Phone - I use constantly. I can find an app for just about everything, and most are either free, or free with ads (pay for ad-free). (And yes, I've bought several apps for it. Weatherbug, and FlightView stand out)
I own a Nook Simple Touch (hacked to Android 2.1) - My cheap tablet, that I can knock around and not worry about. And again with the free apps.

Will not buy another apple product until they stop being the douche of the tech world.
 
2012-08-08 01:24:18 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Great, now Apple will try to patent the white box.


I'm pretty sure that would fall under their rectangle patent anyway.
 
2012-08-08 01:24:44 PM  
 
2012-08-08 01:27:24 PM  
Well, i already own my GS2, so unless Apple sends out a task force to confiscate them all, i'm already set.

Flash4EVA
 
2012-08-08 01:29:29 PM  
PONTIAC SHOULD SUE HONDA

3.bp.blogspot.com

asset3.cbsistatic.com
 
2012-08-08 01:29:44 PM  

finnished: ha-ha-guy: HotWingConspiracy: Gaboo: [www.bitterwallet.com image 411x408]
My HTC incredible also has a a very similar look. Although I can tell it apart from my wife's iPhone, in that mine is the one with bars and hers is the one with "No Service".

Has to be AT&T. Apple would never disappoint you.


That's what she said. Until she got a Verizon iPhone.
 
2012-08-08 01:31:52 PM  

pacified: PONTIAC SHOULD SUE HONDA

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 620x433]

[asset3.cbsistatic.com image 620x433]


To be fair, Honda included some features we didn't there. Theirs could corner, ours couldn't.

/on the other hand with that massive engine bay if you want to go really farking fast in a straight line and know how to use a wrench, it's a good car
//pondering picking up a used one. Drop a giant iron block from the GM truck line in there, mod it to hell and back, and hello 800 pound feet of torque.
 
2012-08-08 01:35:32 PM  
Apple's making a huge mistake fighting these wars with their technology peers. I like the company's products, but their business practices are confrontational and eventually that will start to hurt the product.

Pulling google maps and YouTube off of their phone has already cost them a ton of money. We got 3d maps and turn by turn out of the deal, but what happens when google starts locking the phone out of it's services? Where is video content supposed to come from to fill that big screen and unlimited data plan?

Apple makes great products but is not humble enough to provide services as well as Google does. Alienating major service providers in media, advertising, maps, search, chat and email is no way to make an interconnected device. Especially if your offering can be hacked with a phone call.

They're simultaneously fighting wars on several fronts, out in the open. That's going to make their greatest minds and biggest fans weary of being caught in the middle. You can't innovate if you're constantly replacing services your users already had, and can't count on cooperation from other innovators in the field.
 
2012-08-08 01:48:41 PM  

digistil: blacksharpiemarker: Fark Apple. Worst company on the planet.

Really? Worse than supporting child labor camps?


You know that Apple essentially uses child labor camps in China to assemble their product, right?
 
2012-08-08 01:55:36 PM  

Gaboo: [www.bitterwallet.com image 411x408]
They look a littlebit more than "similar."


And you've nailed it. To the people running around posting different version of the Galaxy and indeed TouchWiz stop, you're repeatedly proving what this guy already did: the original was a dead ringer for the iPhone and AFTER they released it began, hurriedly, moving away.

If people are seriously arguing that one of those two's interface isn't a clone of the other... they're really farking stupid. I mean, so stupid they haven't figured out the purple crayola taste better levels of stupidity.

The case isn't if the current versions infringe, it's if the old version does.

mdking09: not serious about the child labor, but the suicide prevention nets thing is true, apple factory workers were jumping to their deaths in china because they hated their jobs so much.


Foxconn employment contracts contained a life insurance that'd pay out to the family in the event of the workers death; this included suicide. Funny how they stopped jumping when that clause was modified.

Odd that for people who hate it so much they're biatching about reduced hours (as it reduces pay) and non-workers have indeed, formed a little tent colony around the factory whilst they wait for positions to become available.

It's China. It's a different ideology, both you and I wouldn't fully understand it unless we were Chinese and been born & raised there.
 
2012-08-08 02:00:44 PM  

dwyw: /never again, Samsung
//give me Nexus, or give me death


Hell, you even have to be careful even with the Nexus handsets. I bought a Verizon Galaxy Nexus because I wanted the one with real 4G, and that one has been disowned by Google because of a disagreement with Verizon over the Wallet app, so now I'm stuck on 4.04 until god knows when while the HSPA+ variants already have Jelly Bean. It took months just to get the 4.04 update that fixed the terrible launch keyboard and other bugs.
 
2012-08-08 02:04:41 PM  

mccallcl: Apple's making a huge mistake fighting these wars with their technology peers. I like the company's products, but their business practices are confrontational and eventually that will start to hurt the product.


So Microsoft suing everyone in sight over the use of the FAT file system in consumer products is non-confrontational?

After all concept of a filesystem obvious. Computers had file systems long before Microsoft existed.

/Let's pick one set of rules on what is or is not acceptable and try sticking with them.
 
2012-08-08 02:05:54 PM  
for anyone wanting to follow these shenanigans, today's first hour of Forum was about the Apple vs Samsung trial. hop over to kqed.org and look for forum to listen to the program.
 
2012-08-08 02:15:54 PM  

Gaboo: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: OriginalGamer: App Drawer open on Samsung packaging for those claiming Apple is being disingenuous by showing screens that way.

[www.photokina-show.com image 466x401]

Nice stark white box, too... it kind of reminds me of something, but I can't place it.

Was it patented? Yes/no?

Does it matter? I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious thievery. Legal or no, patent or no, mindless Apple haters cannot seem to grasp this concept.


Thievery? If Samsung copies Apple ideas does Apple lose access to those ideas?
 
2012-08-08 02:15:59 PM  

wmoonfox: Oh, it's only a matter of time before they try to patent the cardboard box. Picture of product overlayed on a white background? Lawsuit!


They don't need a patent to hit them on that. Trade dress has the same legal protection as trademark does, so if another company gets too close to how your label or packaging appears, you can sue them for infringement. In fact, much like trademark law, you HAVE to sue infringers, otherwise you risk losing your own intellectual property.

And it is not just Apple that does this. Just try selling a cola product in a wasp-waisted bottle and see how long it takes Coke to send you a cease and deist letter. That's why you'll never see a Pepsi bottle with a "waist". They are all pretty much straight up and down.
 
2012-08-08 02:19:53 PM  

Mad_Radhu: wmoonfox: Oh, it's only a matter of time before they try to patent the cardboard box. Picture of product overlayed on a white background? Lawsuit!

They don't need a patent to hit them on that. Trade dress has the same legal protection as trademark does, so if another company gets too close to how your label or packaging appears, you can sue them for infringement. In fact, much like trademark law, you HAVE to sue infringers, otherwise you risk losing your own intellectual property.

And it is not just Apple that does this. Just try selling a cola product in a wasp-waisted bottle and see how long it takes Coke to send you a cease and deist letter. That's why you'll never see a Pepsi bottle with a "waist". They are all pretty much straight up and down.


I hear you, but we're not talking about a novel packaging idea; we're talking about a rectangular cardboard box with a picture of the product on the front. This would be akin to Coca-Cola suing Pepsi over packaging their product in bottles at all.
 
2012-08-08 02:26:40 PM  

Bullseyed: Thievery? If Samsung copies Apple ideas does Apple lose access to those ideas?


By making their products so similar to Apple in look and feel, both in design and product packaging, they are basically freeloading off of the time and money Apple spent to establish that trade dress. Now, the customer won't be confused enough to think they are buying an Apple product, but they will be more likely to stop and consider purchasing that product than if it look totally different than an Apple product, because of those unconscious cues that associate it with the Apple brand. This could result in more people purchasing the Samsung product over the Apple product, costing Apple sales.

Again, it is like someone that sells cola in a bottle shaped like a coke bottle using red and white labels. They may not consciously confuse it for Coke, but that company is going to sell more than someone who puts it in a differently shaped bottle with a brown label, because there is that mental association with the Coke brand that is created by duplicating their look and feel.
 
2012-08-08 02:36:36 PM  

wmoonfox: I hear you, but we're not talking about a novel packaging idea; we're talking about a rectangular cardboard box with a picture of the product on the front. This would be akin to Coca-Cola suing Pepsi over packaging their product in bottles at all.


There's a difference between simply using a cardboard box and aping the entire look and feel of the packaging.

www9.pcmag.com

www.thegalaxytab.com

images.fonearena.com
 
2012-08-08 02:50:14 PM  
So, Samsung admits to copying and the iHaters go into frenzied denials. Made my day.
 
2012-08-08 02:54:53 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Gaboo: mdking09: not when photoshop is removed from the equation.

What photoshop? I posted the first generation of each device, not picking random iterations that would obviously look a lot less like each other.

The image of the Galaxy is re-sized to give the false impression of additional similarity. Please, don't trust everything Apple presents at face value. They've been caught bullsh*tting repeatedly. Here's a valid comparison shot. If you still want to claim similarity, fine, but base your assertions on reality please.

[cdn4.droidmatters.com image 586x439]
/hot


Zmog! Samsung uses an icon of a phone for the phone app! And an envelope for e-mail! Someone call the lawyers.
 
2012-08-08 02:58:51 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Let's see..."white plain" background, the implications of "simple", and boy that font looks similar to...

OH MY GOD, HONDA SHOULD SUE APPLE!
[www.hondainthenews.com image 850x637]


We need to go deeper:

thinkingouttabox.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-08 03:06:23 PM  

Bullseyed: digistil: blacksharpiemarker: Fark Apple. Worst company on the planet.

Really? Worse than supporting child labor camps?

You know that Apple essentially uses child labor camps in China to assemble their product, right?


Do you actual believe that?
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report