Feeds

back to article Samsung tells Apple: Quit your 'frivolous' whining over court doc leak

Apple's attempt to score an easy win over Samsung in their smartphone patent trial, thus punishing its rival for leaking court evidence, has been branded "extreme" by the South Korean giant. Samsung had prepared slides to defend itself against allegations that it copied the iPhone design for its own products, but the court case' …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

LDS
Silver badge

Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

Samsung should simply use Star Trek images to point out Jobs could have just been an avid Trekker wanting his own real PADD when he asked to build one....

5
1
Silver badge

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

or back to the future 2.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

The PADD has nothing to do with the design of the iPad or Samsung's tablets...

Maybe refresh your memory here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD

1
4
Meh

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

but it looks like a rectangle with rounded to me. It is also described "Consisting of a large touchscreen display and minimalistic manual interface or control panel (generally only one or two buttons)"

Sounds like a pretty good description for a tablet (wether iOS or Android) to me.

17
1
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

"PADDs were used by such space-faring organizations as Starfleet, Andorian Imperial Guard, Bajoran Militia, Cardassian Union, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and Vulcan High Command. They were common to cultures even as distant as the Delta Quadrant. "

Ah but the concept of a screen contained in a sheel of usually the same shape has been used throudhout the universe.

I call prior art and demand that Apple have to proove beyond doubt that their patent is for a unique look and feel and tha the UI parts have never been used anywhere else either, otherwise their patents must be thrown out.

We can then do the same for all the others and set up a new system that is purely earth based.

We would then see prices drop like mad with some great tech freely available.

5
1
Joke

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

PADD "used as early as the 22nd century and well into the 24th century." Apple will argue that the PADD doesn't yet exist and must therefore be based on the iPad.

13
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"

Oh no! Now they're going to sue the estate of Gene Roddenberry!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Playground stuff again

From two companies that should know better.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Playground stuff again

Apple are showing themselves up.

Its akin to a toddler stamping their feet and screaming.

Makes their customers look rather foolish.

16
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Playground stuff again

Samsung is the one being the most idiotic here. Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court.

Sorry, but if you messed up your evidence submission then that's too bad. You can always appeal and then submit it. It's not like anyone is going to be locked up if they are found guilty.

8
30

Re: Playground stuff again

"Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court."

But... Jurors aren't supposed to be investigating the case, they are supposed to make their mind up on what they hear in court.

As for the leaks to the press, Apple have been spouting 'Samsung copied Apple' to the press for the past couple of years, surely the jury could have heard that before.

Anyway, whatever happens, it sure is an interesting read on Groklaw anyway who seems to be a little less biased that the articles on El Reg.

Rob

14
2
Thumb Up

Re: Playground stuff again

Agreed, Samsung's legal team are paid a not insubstantial sum to do this for a living, missing deadlines and then running to the press like a spoilt child makes them look inept at best.

5
8
FAIL

Makes their customers look rather foolish?

What, like all customers of the bank RBS look foolish because their choice of bank had an IT problem?

Like customers of all banks look foolish as the banks instigated the global financial meltdown?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Playground stuff again

"Samsung is the one being the most idiotic here. Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court.

Sorry, but if you messed up your evidence submission then that's too bad. You can always appeal and then submit it. It's not like anyone is going to be locked up if they are found guilty."

See.

0
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Makes their customers look rather foolish?

"Makes their customers look rather foolish?

What, like all customers of the bank RBS look foolish because their choice of bank had an IT problem?

Like customers of all banks look foolish as the banks instigated the global financial meltdown?"

How can the two be compared?

RBS = Inexperienced staff.

Apple = Spitting the dummy.

3
5
Thumb Up

@Rob Beard

Thanks for the Groklaw tip.

1
0
WTF?

Re: Playground stuff again

I'd be embarrassed to own an Apple product right about now. Luckily my last one got unhappy face and was flung in the bin. If I lived in the USA I'd be really pissed off having the choice of tablet taken away from me. Seems more harmful to have fruity patents.

12
3
Anonymous Coward

@Obviously? - Re: Playground stuff again

Or maybe Samsung's legal team has a brilliant plan. You can never know, we're talking about top lawyers here.

3
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: @Obviously? - Playground stuff again

It took me a minute or two to notice the ! and ? marks. I briefly thought Obviously was having some sort of break down...

3
0
Stop

Re: Playground stuff again

While I wholeheartedly agree about lawyers being paid to do a better job, I feel the company they represent (and by extension the result of the trial which results in legal precedents) will be punished for something that they should not be punished for.

Imagine you are sentenced to death penalty because you lawyer messed up by something like this and tell me if you still find it correct.

1
0

Re: Playground stuff again

Is it contempt if the judge has not specifically ordered that Samsung keep it under wraps? If it's not evidence, then surely Samsung can release it and do with it whatever it likes?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Playground stuff again

Playground stuff? No, I don't think you appreciate the intellectual genius here. Apple don't stand a chance. Samsung are using the Marklar defence!

0
0
FAIL

Re: Playground stuff again

couldn't agree more. Apple want to have their cake and eat it as well.

1
0
Silver badge
Stop

I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

Apple admit that real tablet PCs existed before the iPad, never mind fake props in TV and movies. They are not claiming ownership of the concept of tablet PCs, they are claiming ownership of a specific case design and certain UI features. If Samsung want to change the Galaxy Pad to look like the props from 2001 then I'm sure Apple will be delighted.

5
15
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

Which is fair given that decent design costs money to do. Ripping off and changing is much cheaper.

Asian firms are well known for copying. Look at the BMW 1 series compared to the Hyundai i30.

http://www.babybmw.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34597

2
12
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

Or indeed the Samsung F700 and the HTC Tytn...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

They're claiming ownership of a generic case design, which incorporates features that have been used before. Apple and Samsung both created designs which use those features and Apple wants to ban Samsung from using Samsung's (and Knight-Ridder's etc) design features.

If they want to claim a specific design then let them. Samsung's products are specifically a different design, but are generally the same.

8
2
Silver badge

Samsung's defense is that the design is generic

But so far the judge isn't buying that, hence the injunctions.

3
3
Stop

Re: I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

Don't see it personally, the problem is that Apple's case design is so basic and their design patent so broad that you would have to actively go out of your way to try and avoid it. This isn't so much a case of say VW patenting the VW Golf design, but also patenting the compact car hatchback shape, and them suing Peugot, Renault, Citroen, Honda, Kia and others for their compact hatchbacks because from a distance they are difficult to tell apart. Not only that, they also all decided to place the various car instrument displays behind the steering wheel and install a gear stick and AV system in the centre console area, which if VW followed Apple's logic would also be banned.

5
2
Silver badge
Stop

And yet

The judge says the Galaxy Pad 10.1N doesn't infringe Apple's design, despite being very little different from the 10.1. The design is nowhere near as basic and the patent nowhere near as broad as you seem to think.

0
4
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: And yet

What he said: "design patent so broad that you would have to actively go out of your way to try and avoid it"

Samsung applied their existing design patterns and came up with the Galaxy Tab. It was different to the ipad and other earlier tablets but the basics were similar to the ipad so they were forced to actively go out of their way to avoid infringing.

How is that not exactly as broad as he thinks? You post illogical, uninformed, outright wrong Apple fanatic nonsense many times a day here and get owned and downvoted constantly. You need to get a clue.

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

It doesn't require that much effort (how long did it take Samsung to design the 10.1N?)

And claiming that you'd have to think about how not to infringe a design patent isn't an excuse.

Design is hard. It look Apple years and over 30 prototypes to come up with their design. You're saying that Samsung shouldn't have to use a little effort to come up with something that doesn't infringe?

Faindroids refusing to consider that Apple may have a point for some of their claims and down voting anything that contradicts that view is no reason to stop posting. All I have written is consistent with the way that the courts view these things, not how you'd like the world to be. Samsung may have a point with some or all of their patent claims. So far some of the details look like bullshit to me (the 2007 patent for background MP3 playback on a phone in particular) but I don't yet know enough detail to be definitive. Fandroids are convinced that Samsung is all sunshine and light, which I know isn't true (and neither are Apple BTW)

0
4
Silver badge

Re: It doesn't require that much effort (how long did it take Samsung to design the 10.1N?)

Never mind what the court allows us to think, just look at all the evidence. It's not that Android users think Samsung is god, it's just they they accept that design is hard and Samsung went through many prototypes before coming up with a design which they were later forced to change. You're saying that Samsung should be told that their independent designs are copies of what Apple designers developed from Sony principles and then be banned from using their own hard work?

If you think that the court prevents people from examining all the facts then you're wrong. Those you dismiss as Fandroids are consistent with reality, whereas you are consistent only with how a failed legal system would like the world to be. That's why every post of yours is a fail.

1
1
Silver badge
Stop

So you're taking the fact that the F700 evidence was excluded

as proof that the courts are biased and poor little Samsung is being put upon?

Did you bother to check how much of Apple's evidence got excluded also (quite a lot actually, for the same sort of reasons as Samsung). You think that the F700, if you look at it from the front only, without deploying the keyboard, and ignore much of the fine detail, shows that Samsung had designed the Galaxy S case in December 2006. That's a particularly poor grasp on reality you have there.

Or are you saying that Apple having investigated the question of what they thought that a Sony designed iPhone would look like shows that Apple stole the design from Sony (even though they didn't use that design, and earlier designs have more in common with the final iPhone case).

0
2
Joke

Re: Samsung's defense is that the design is generic

NO, the judge isnt buying it.....

she's been given a shiney new set of i-Products

1
0
Silver badge

Wow, you can even facetime on a klingon padd - awesome.

I believe it was made by a company called Zilm'kach

3
0
Silver badge

I see what you did there...

0
0
WTF?

Thank heavens for Apple Originality

What do you mean? A rectangle with rounded corners, icons and a touch sensitive screen. How about it having a black bevel? That must be original, or using standard human gestures to control things on a touch screen. Bloody hell how innovative is that...

I wish someone would setup a technology shop right next to every apple store called Everthing But Apple and fill with all the stolen tech that Google, Samsung, etal have robbed Apple with...

7
5
Silver badge
FAIL

And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

The place seems to be riddled with them, non of whom would understand a design drawing if it smacked them in the face.

5
11
Silver badge

Re: Thank heavens for Apple Originality

I honestly can't tell whether to vote you up for an amusing parody of Apple fans, or vote you down for being serious. Poe's law strikes again...

4
3
FAIL

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

I wish I could patent a rectangle too.

8
2

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

I'm pretty sure a design patent would include such things a geometry, proportions, look, texture and overall impression. Please correct me if I have miss-understood.

The geometry and proportions are nothing new as per the discussions above. The look is similar, but IMHO also pre-existing. The texture is noticeably different - Sorry Samsung, your phones feel cheaper. And the overall impression is different as decide in UK court that the galaxy tab appears "an almost insubstantial member of the same family" and does not have the same "understated design"

What all the legal wrangling comes down to is the worry that a potential apple customer might buy a samsung by mistake, and that is what any damages will be based on.

With your understanding of design patents (and the fact that your commenting here suggests your are reasonably tech-savvy) do you honestly think this is a significant risk.

Even my dear old mum who can no work the video recorder and puts a full stop after every word in text messages because she can't find the space button, said of my Galaxy S2 "It's not as shiny as that iphone but it looks much easier to hold" - Thus proving difference in look, feel and overall impression.

Even if Apple win this, and any subsequent appeal - Samsung will be able to go after Apple through court in a different territory (probably UK or mainland Europe) and win the money back.

The sad thing is the only winners are the lawyers, and on both side they have made some glaring errors and shouldn't command such ridiculous fees.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

I never understood this obsession with "shininess" - if I wanted shiny, I'd buy a mirror. My Nokia 5800 has a higher specular reflection coefficient than my Galaxy Nexus I think, but I wouldn't judge them by that - they both have decent looks each in their own way. And I'd rate both looks above that of the Iphone 4S. I don't see better reflection as better - in fact, I think it just makes the Apple logo look tacky and stuck on.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

PS - as another example, my Galaxy is distinctly more shiny now that I've added a case, but I think overall it detracts from the look.

Also consider screens - "shiny" reflective screens are Glossy, as opposed to Matte, which get no reflections. Superficially might think the shiny glossy screens are nicer, but matte is much better to work with, especially outside, as reflections are the last thing you want on a screen, particularly under light. I love the matte screen on my Samsung netbook, and never understood why no phone seems to have them (anyone know?) Also thought it surprising that Macs all seem to have glossy, given that they are sold as being better for graphics artists, and given Apple's obsession with wonderful "retina" display - what good is that when you've got "shiny" reflections across the screen. (Disclaimer - I have glossy on my Clevo. Glossy is fine for indoor use, but I would never say it's better than matte, I just got the cheaper option as I had no use for matte, as I'm not a graphics artist, and not using it outdoors.)

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

Have you actually looked at the design patent drawings..... if not I suggest you do as they are so generic it is stupid.

2
1
Gimp

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

Well, if I'm a fandroid, you are a fapple.

1
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

As many have said, everyone though of this before, just only 1 or 2 companies had the money to make them. I've even got designs of an almost identical tablet touch screen phone from 2003 that I drew while learning 3D software. I mean, who did not try that design?

1
0
Silver badge

No, materials and feel have nothing to do with it

A cheap knock-off made of chromed plastic is still an infringement of a metal device. The design patent is ONLY about how the device appears, nothing else. It also doesn't have to be a 100% match, just close enough for the judge to decide that it has substantially the same appearance.

0
2
Unhappy

Re: And another fandroid pops up with a wildly over-simplified description of Apple's design patent

The engineering technology involved in Apple's case patent is on the level of a six year old kid. Why aren't patent laws changed so that at least some engineering expertise has to be demonstrated.

1
1
Silver badge
Stop

How many times

do I have to bang this in? DESIGN Patents aren't about engineering technology, they are about cosmetic appearance. If you could carve the shape out of butter with a spoon you'd still be infringing the design.

The engineering required to build the case isn't trivial (I'd love to see your 6 year old trying to mill out the case back from a block of aluminium) but the hard work is designing the hardware and software to fit inside of it. All the buyer sees though is the case, and if two designs look near enough the same and the salesman says "hey, this one is the same but cheaper" then Apple have unfairly lost a sale.

0
4

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.