back to article Apple: Samsung was in 'crisis' over our iPhone awesomeness

Apple has told a court that its iPhone put Samsung into a right tizzy and that's why the South Korean giant had to go and copy all its stuff. The fruity firm trotted out an internal Samsung document that likened the features of the iPhone to "Heaven and Earth" and revealed Samsung staff were suffering a "crisis in design" over …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. HMB

    Conflation

    Apple have made an interesting move clouding the water.

    Android was the key to competing with iOS, but Android (purchased by Google in 2005) isn't on trial here, Samsung is, at least officially. Apple can claim any win against Samsung a win against Android, conflating the two.

    The best case I see Apple having here isn't that Samsung had similar looking phones (as the design was so generic and simple), but that Samsung used Touchwiz to "iOS-ify" android.

    I just see lots of collateral damage being a distinct possibility in this case.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Conflation

      Apple hope to show that Samsung had -

      - similar looking phones

      - with a similar looking UI and icons

      - in similar packaging

      Apple are claiming a bit more than the 'round corners' that trolls love to quote - to the extent that Samsung copied every important aspect of the iPhone and its packaging.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Conflation

        Lets face it, the iPhone had Google, Microsoft (although not soon enough), Nokia, Samsung, HTC and all the others worrying themselves about it's new UI and touch screen approach.

        Out of all of the above only one company made their UI, phone design and packaging similar in appearance to Apple and it is Samsung.

        Google changed Android to be a large screen touchscreen OS. Nokia fumbled around for years and failed to get anywhere and HTC were largely immune since they don't have their own OS.

        Some people who discount the iPhone's impact need take their mind back to 2006 and early 2007. There were touchscreen phones but they required a stylus to tap buttons on the screen. Most people were using phones with numeric keypads.

        1. Mark .

          Re: Conflation

          What was this new UI? Seriously, I've used touchscreen Symbian (Nokia 5800), and now Android 4, and the way the touchscreen UI works is the bleeding obvious way to apply touchscreen to my 2005 feature phone - that had rows of icons, but instead of clicking with a button, you now touch with a finger. From a development point of view, for the most part touchscreen is implemented similar to a pointer. Yes, there are tweaks like multitouch, which is the only thing Apple added - but having used both a single touch and multi touch phone, by far the biggest improvement is having touch at all. The additional benefit of multitouch is tiny in comparison, on a well designed UI. So either Iphone has some great UI that no one else has (in which case, you can't claim it influenced anyone else), or it's not true at all.

          Nokia fumbled about for years? They delivered a Symbian smartphone that did touchscreen and apps before Apple (since the original Iphone was a dumb phone that couldn't do apps), and went onto sell hundreds of millions with that platform, far more than Apple's entire phone sales. It was Nokia who brought the concepts of touchscreen and smartphone together, not Apple. It was Nokia who also popularised it, with the number one platform until 2011, when they were overtaken by Android, not Apple - and Symbian outsold Iphone until the switch to WP (even now, the installed userbase is probably larger).

          "There were touchscreen phones but they required a stylus to tap buttons on the screen."

          Not this myth - a stylus is a useful addition, not a requirement. I liked it on my Nokia 5800, but it wasn't required. Same with a Galaxy Note today.

          "Most people were using phones with numeric keypads."

          But this was still true in 2007. And 2008, and probably later. And when it stopped being true, it was thanks to Symbian or Android, not Iphone. Just take a look at the factual sales figures.

          1. a_been
            Facepalm

            Re: Conflation @ Mark.

            The Nokia 5800 was released in April 2008, thats 15 months after working versions of the iPhone were demoed.

        2. MrT

          As I recall...

          ... when the iPhone originally came out, most talk was of the shift in the balance away from the network and subsidized or branded handsets (such as most of HTC's work before it developed it's own brand).

          Whether the manufacturers were immediately jealous or affected by the physical device was not their first concern - it was the possible change to their position in relation to the accepted business model. Apple were treated as a special case at all points, for example having different contracts and allowances, with everyone watching carefully to see if the new content-driven revenue model would work.

        3. Stylee

          Stylus required

          "required a stylus to tap buttons on the screen"

          No they didn't. My first touchscreen phone (released 2004) had a stylus, which I would get out occasionally when precision was required. Usually I would use my finger. OK, so resistive screens will not work with the feather-light touch of capacitive screens, but capacitive screens do actually 'require' a fleshy (or at least conductive) pointer. A resistive screen can be operated with a stylus, finger (with or without gloves), corner of coffee table, ball-point pen, camel's hoof - whatever.

          Apparently, the first capacitive touchscreen phone was made by LG.

          1. Mage Silver badge
            Flame

            Re: Stylus required

            Capacitive touch screens go back at least to the 1980s. But in the late 1980s we thought sketching and handwriting and using a remote desktop was important. All those need a Stylus and the higher superior precision of the resistive screen. The Capacitive screen was regarded as inferior.

            Trolltech actually had two versions of their UI, one like "Windows" that needed a stylus occasionally and a 2nd one for "finger use".

            Apple's innovation isn't in HW at all. But being at the right place and right time to market a phone and UI more for Media Consumption and "Joe Public" than most (but not all) the previous smart phones all orientated really to business use and data entry.

            Their UI is a logic and obvious progression from mouse or stylus UI (not quite the same as you realise if you try to use Graphics tablet instead of a mouse on "standard" OS 9, Linux, and Win95/NT. Hence a tablet edition of XP.

            They don't deserve to have more than a handful of patents. They are brilliant at marketing. Shame on them for attempting to block any decent competition when the SW & HW and shape of their own products is almost entirely based on Prior art . But USPO doesn't do due diligence, it's apparently up to people with very expensive lawyers to challenge every claim in a Court system that assumes Innovation is American and everyone else is cloning..

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Conflation

        "Lets face it, the iPhone had Google, Microsoft (although not soon enough), Nokia, Samsung, HTC and all the others worrying themselves about it's new UI and touch screen approach."

        *BOLLOX, the iPhone still hasn't brought anything new. Touchscreen were in use prior to the iPhone release and the UI wasn't new either. Why do fanbois decide to ignore the facts?*

        "Out of all of the above only one company made their UI, phone design and packaging similar in appearance to Apple and it is Samsung."

        *What so all of the other mobiles I've purchased came in a paper bag? Stop lying to yourself.*

        "Google changed Android to be a large screen touchscreen OS. Nokia fumbled around for years and failed to get anywhere and HTC were largely immune since they don't have their own OS."

        *Do you see with your grandparents eyes? Rhetoric*

        "Some people who discount the iPhone's impact need take their mind back to 2006 and early 2007. There were touchscreen phones but they required a stylus to tap buttons on the screen. Most people were using phones with numeric keypads."

        *Touchscreen is a touchscreen, stylus or not. So apple didn’t invent the touch screen. They spent $M's to reel in the week of mind, and it worked, clearly.*

        Stop trying to kid yourselves. All the bull Apple spouts can be proven to be complete spin, not an ounce of truth in what they spout.

        1. Toothpick

          Re: Conflation

          "All the bull Apple spouts can be proven to be complete spin, not an ounce of truth in what they spout"

          They spout less bullshit than you do

        2. toadwarrior
          Facepalm

          Re: Conflation

          Are you retarded? No one said apple invented touchscreens. His point is their overall design was deemed better and everyone followed their lead which is pretty much true. My old G1 had a touch screen as did my win mobile phone but both also came with keyboards like most smart phones. So the focus wasn't just on the screen which is why those phones were lacking in touch screen usability.

        3. slhilly

          Re: Conflation

          1) Why do people misremember the past in this way? It's really bizarre. What touchscreen mobiles were in common use at the time of the iPhone launch? I didn't know a single person back then who had a touchscreen phone.

          2) Why are some people unable to read properly. The GP was saying that Samsung's packaging was similar to Apple's, not that other phone manufacturers didn't have any packaging. What a weird inference to make!

          3) Who claimed that Apple invented the touchscreen? Neither Apple nor the GP? You are tilting at windmills and people are laughing at you for doing so.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Conflation

        "Re: Conflation

        Apple hope to show that Samsung had -

        - similar looking phones

        - with a similar looking UI and icons

        - in similar packaging

        Apple are claiming a bit more than the 'round corners' that trolls love to quote - to the extent that Samsung copied every important aspect of the iPhone and its packaging."

        What important aspects?

        A rectangle with rounded corners. All phones have rounded corners (nearly). Apple stole the idea od frounded corners from every other phone released prior to iphone.

        Since when does Android and it's icoms look the iPhone? Android doesn't look like 80's wallpaper. That can't be said of iOS.

        Stop kidding yourself and stop trying to spread the lies.

        1. Joseph Lord

          Re: Conflation

          > Since when does Android and it's icoms[sic] look the iPhone? Android doesn't look like 80's wallpaper. That can't be said of iOS.

          I have read and seen pictures indicating that Samsung replaced some of the default Android icons with alternatives that look much more similar to the iPhone icons so it is possible that Samsung products were similar even if vanilla Android wasn't.

          To me it seems clear that Samsung made choices to make their product much more similar to the iPhone than did other Android manufacturers. Much more similar than was necessary to produce a touchscreen phone. Now the court will decide whether it constitutes infringements of Apples design patents under US law (similar to registered designs here I think).

          > Stop kidding yourself and stop trying to spread the lies.

          You seem to be lightly informed of the details but are making strong accusations. Maybe the other poster is wrong (at least in some areas - I don't think Samsung copied every important aspect) but that doesn't make them a liar.

          1. Chet Mannly

            Re: Conflation

            "so it is possible that Samsung products were similar"

            So in other words you are speculating to try and make Apple's case.

            I owned both phones, the UI on the Samsung not only was totally different to the iphone, its is better for my purposes.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Conflation

          I love your constant references to wallpaper, and try as I may, I just cannot see what on earth you are talking about - but that has been the case with most of your posts.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: Conflation

          "What important aspects?"

          These for a start:

          http://i.imgur.com/z4ZnA.jpg

          http://i.imgur.com/UTMrR.jpg

          http://i.imgur.com/MkrAT.png

          http://i.imgur.com/7hi4d.jpg

          http://i.imgur.com/yXDfr.jpg

          http://i.imgur.com/lw5Qf.jpg

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: Conflation

            I can't believe people are complaining that two companies released products in a BOX with a PICTURE OF THE CONTENTS on it. Fuck me pink, that's pretty pathetic.

            Maybe if Psion had sued the two of them for copying "it's" idea of having a phone with icons for different functions they'd still have a business model. But, you know, that's obviously different because, like, Apple used coloured icons so that's basically the same as Steve Jobs inventing the whole idea of mobile phones, or some shit like that because he saw it some where and that's visual, which makes him a visionary dunnit? stands to reason.

            1. John H Woods Silver badge

              Re: Conflation

              A quick image search for Psion MX origina box reveals boxes with - a picture on the lid.

          2. h4rm0ny

            Re: Conflation

            Those are interesting images. The packaging certainly looks very similar to Apples. But then Apple's design motif is very minimalist. It's a white box with a picture of the product on the front. If Apple had a swirly circle and line design and Samsung did the same, it would be easy to sue. But it's a white box - can you really patent minimalism? And it's just packaging. Are Apple really able to sue because the box that the device comes in is similar? Are they arguing that the box is a significant part of the purchasing decision? Similarly, the advert looks very similar, but it's again minimalist, no different to any number of perfume ads or other products. And again, are they suing over the product being similar or for doing similar marketing material?

            The cable interfaces are ridiculous to sue over. USB is a standard interface. Are Samsung expected to stick spikes on the plug or something to make it look different? The speaker looks like a rip-off.

            Taken individually, none of these convince me. Taken in aggregate it builds to a picture of some influence, but that influence seems to be mainly in the area of packaging and marketing, rather than the actual device. I wasn't aware that Apple were suing over similar marketing rather than purely about the device. I think it's a pretty weak basis for a claim by Apple and I'm not really convinced suiing has an ethical basis here as I'm not 100% convinced that similarity of packaging or ads are a legitimate basis.

            1. slhilly

              Re: Conflation

              So you asked some questions:

              1) Can you really patent minimalism?

              I think the box comes under trade dress, rather than patenting. And there are plenty of ways of differentiating -- Sammy's picture could have been of the phone at an off-angle, it could have been a picture in situ rather than contextless, there could have been icons emerging from the phone, etc etc. You just need to google "Android phone box" and you can see the endless creative ways there are of differentiating products on the shelf.

              2) Can Apple sue because of a similarity in the box (vs the device)?

              Yes, a manufacturer can sue (and win) because of packaging similarities.....because of your third question

              3) Are Apple arguing the box is a significant part of the purchasing decision?

              Yes. Same way that Coke can go after manufacturers who use the same shape bottle and the same labelling....and same reason that own-brand cola labels are so often red. Red = trusted brand colour for cola for many consumers. Apple are also arguing that the combined effect of all the similarities is what really counts in confusing the purchaser.

              Re the cable interfaces. Just google images of "USB plugs" and you will see that the vast majority of USB plugs do not look like iPhone USB plugs. A typical USB plug looks like this:

              http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/File:USB_Plug.jpg

              Surely you can see how the Sammy and Apple plugs look far more like each other than either looks like this plug? In fact, you'll have to hunt pretty far and wide to find a USB plug from any other manufacturer, phone or not, that looks like Apple's or Sammy's USB plug.

              Seems to me that you're not too sure of the differences between trade dress, design patents and utility patents.

              As to the ethics of it, I think it's pretty straightforward. You develop a lovely shiny new toy that popularises some technologies that have been around and about for ages, but which no-one has previously been able to make come together smoothly. You put huge effort into making sure your toy looks beautiful and distinctive, so that people recognise it instantly and want to hold it. You launch it. Some other bugger comes along and copies your toy, including how it looks, so that consumers can't much tell the difference between the thing you brought to market and the thing the johnny-come-lately brought to market. Not very fair. That's the ethical case. It would operate the same way for someone who made a knock-off of an Aston Martin. Even if the engine under the hood was different, you can't just copy the same lovely body shape and pass off your car as being an Aston. It's Not On.

          3. Ken Hagan Gold badge
            WTF?

            Re: "These for a start"

            I see no possibility for confusion.

            All the images for Samsung products have "Samsung" written on them.

            All those for Apple products have "iPhone", "MacThingy" or a fruity logo drawn on them.

            You can read, can't you?

            How big do they have to write "SAMSUNG" on the FRONT FACE OF THE PRODUCT for you to realise that you aren't holding an iPhone?

            Beyond that, they have rounded corners because no-one sells products to go in pockets and handbags with pointy corners and they never have done. The interfaces look the same because Xerox invented the WIMP interface and failed to stop Apple and Microsoft from copying it. All consumer electronics looks the same. That's why your children can pick up and use any of them, even if this feat continues to amaze anyone over the age of 20.

          4. slhilly

            Re: Conflation

            That is a truly amazing set of images....the cumulative effect is really something.

        4. the-it-slayer
          Happy

          Re: Conflation

          @obviously! - you're the biggest fandroid and always have to leap to detest the iPhone without any clear logic and fair criticism. Seriously, do you work for Google? I suspect you do to be quite frank.

          Look back previous to the iPhone:

          - Nokia's large screen offerings were weird, slow and didn't embrace the possibility of the Internet.

          - Windows previously dominated the touchscreen market which were PDAs. Again slow, cumbersome, and the OS looked older every day that went by. A very lazy evolution.

          - RIM were strong in the business sector and their Blackberrys should of continued to push. Again, slow OS progress caused them to slow down rapidly once companies started to trust the Apple and 3G appeared with business attributes.

          - Motorola had huge success with RAZR. I personally loved my flip version. Again, their progress stagnated and didn't have a clear direction.

          With regards to iOS looking old, take one thing from it. I wonder the percentage of people who have remained through out the progression of the original to today's 4/4S. Probably quite a fair percentage. And the UI has a similar feel to Mac OS X. Why break a winning formula? It always needs a polish at every release and there's no reason why it should change in a big way. Why upset your customers by placing buttons in different places, with different colours and orientations. I bet I couldn't pick up Android 4 versions on from when I used the first ever T-Mobile G1. From what I remember, it was very clumsy and crashed constantly. Probably the same as today.

        5. Cutman

          Re: Conflation

          Every important Apple UI element was copied by Samsung.

          Read the directions for improvement, er, make it more iPhone.

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/44

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Conflation

        Now I know why my S2 came in a 4S box.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Conflation

      "Apple can claim any win against Samsung a win against Android, conflating the two."

      No they can not.

      "Apple can claim any win against Samsung a win against Android, conflating the two."

      I don't have a samsung handset, don't like them, but Apple can not claim a win against android! What Win are your talking about anyway? In your head?

    3. Steve Todd
      Stop

      I don't think there's a single claim or patent on trial here

      That is in stock android. All the software claims are changes that Samsung made with TouchWiz.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Another opportunity

      For the android fan base to scream and shout like children in a nursery.

      Actually that statement is insulting to children who do not have much control over their emotional responses.

      At least they have an excuse, the Fandroids have none.

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Another opportunity

        Agreed, they're almost as bad as Apple's fanboi base. Give me an old Nokia any day and I promise to charge it once a week whether it needs it or not.

  2. Silverburn
    Mushroom

    Lol - FFS, can this get any more childish?

    What's next - a game of chinese burns until someone cries?

    1. ukgnome
      Coat

      I think you will find it will be a game of south korean burns until someone cries.

      Or as they call it in australia, nice korea

    2. QuinnDexter

      The story or the responses on the thread?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @QuinnDexter

        Both, I reckon.

        I mean, I'm a huge Fandroid (but I'm cutting down on the pie-and-chips...) but seriously, can't we all just get along?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lets see

    "The overall impression that the ordinary observer would have of that design, is that they're substantially the same," Bressler said eventually.

    That's the expert witness paid for by the plaintiff, who says that?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lets see

      Yes, and if the plaintiff's implementation came before the defendant's, then the defendant loses. Geddit?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Lets see

        I'll rephrase that for you. That's just the opinion of a man who has been paid a lot of money for it.

  4. SJRulez

    You've copied my house design.... how? By putting round corners on it!

    Its great when two tech giants can go head to head over the style of a device, Apple are just whining because the only thing that does actually make there phone recognizable is its shape, the actual features aren't the selling point for them and never will be!

    The fact that Apple are now suffering at the hands of patent trolls just adds to the fun, they're about to get their ass dragged through court over face time, siri and various other ip infringements. They seem to be getting more like MS, get a product we can sell no matter what the cost or method and throw money at any problems later once we already sold loads of them.

  5. ukgnome

    truthfully

    does anyone give a fruit?

    I'm a droid user, but some of my best friends are apple users. We marvel at each others device and see the merits in both. Apple users buy apple products and other tech heads but android.

    All the great phones have a rectangular touch screen and have a variety of apps installed. Maybe the fandroids and the fanbois should unite and tell the manufacturers to quit this cock measuring contest as both players indeed have a penis that is about the same size.

    1. ItsNotMe
      Thumb Up

      Re: truthfully

      Totally agree.

      This whole patent BS is out of hand. I am SO sick and tired of the entire lot of them.

    2. ThomH

      Re: truthfully

      I give a fruit.

      Specifically, I'm going to be annoyed if companies are able to obtain ownership of fairly common ideas just by virtue of good execution. Apple has accrued a huge financial advantage for being first to market with a really usable touchscreen web device and that's enough — sure they did a lot of hard work but they've been rewarded for it.

      1. lurker

        Re: truthfully

        Yup, this is what annoys me, the sheer greed behind it all. Apple have, from their successful execution of ideas which were really all already out there, accrued a pile of cash large enough to ski down.

        But is that enough? No, they want to be the only child in the schoolyard which is allowed to play with the toys.

        I know that this is the corporate world where greed is institutionally encouraged, but really it's sickening to watch, especially from a company which purports to 'think differently'. Doesn't look too different from where I'm sitting.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: truthfully

        "sure they did a lot of hard work but they've been rewarded for it."

        For example?

        (I'm thinking here of stuff that they didn't copy, so that rules out touchscreens, mobile music players, WIMP, etc)

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Chet Mannly

      Re: truthfully

      "does anyone give a fruit?"

      Given the limits that Apple are trying to put on developers and the chilling effect it would have on innovation in the industry, yeah, I really do!

      But I totally agree with the "quit the fanboi wars over phones" sentiment.

      1. a_been

        Re: truthfully

        How is helping to make developers billions of dollars "chilling"? Are the console makers having a chilling effect on the the game developers? If anyone is hurting inovetion it is Google for trying to force developers into their advertising eco-system by wiping out every other viable smartphone platform.

        1. Dante

          Re: truthfully

          So pushing and actively suing for software patents is a good thing for developers? WTF... think about that again SOFTWARE PATENTS & DEVELOPERS is there a link there?

        2. EvilGav 1
          Unhappy

          Re: truthfully

          "Are the console makers having a chilling effect on the the game developers?"

          Actually, yes.

          Games development on consoles is basically static, but because the market is more lucrative, it's the market publishers want the games developers to focus on.

          For a decade gaming resolution increased every couple of years, as the predominant hardware got better - we're now in a situation where the same resolution has been used for 5+ years, as the consoles are dictating the available hardware limitations.

          Creating a closed, albeit lucrative, ecosystem ultimately stagnates development - you chase money alone.

  6. Bumpy Cat
    WTF?

    Uh-huh

    So Samsung, a chaebol that makes ships, aircraft and electronics, and has construction and banking branches, was "in crisis" over a phone? I think Apple needs to stop believing its own hype ...

    1. a_been
      Facepalm

      Re: Uh-huh

      That was from an internal Samsung document, you should read the article before beliving Samsung's PR.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple didn't invent a rectangle with rounded corners.

    They did think of using glass and stainless steel (kitchens circa 2000) and they did introduce a sickly looking 80's wall paper design to their UI. Their design can't be patented and they can't say that no one else can make devices of the same shape. If they do, then they are contradicting themselves because devices which are rectangles with rounded corners were produced WAY before Apple released the god awefull iPhone.

    They didn't invent 3G.

    They didn't invent the camera.

    They didn't invent.................................

    Christ the list is endless!

    I hate lying sheep people.

    1. a_been
      FAIL

      They did invent the iPhone which Samsung ripped off, try staying within reality.

      1. SJRulez

        Lol, they designed the iPhone of which Samsung supplies about half the parts!

  8. Mark .

    I can see how they must have paniced. I mean, there Samsung were, having been making phones for years with 3G, apps, copy/paste, video calling, multitasking, MMS, Java, Flash, maps. And here come along Apple with a phone that does none of that - but OMG, it was rectangular with rounded corners!

    Samsung must have been in crisis, what with all those spherical and dodecahedron phones they'd been making before. We should be thankful to Apple for ushering in the rectangular-phone era, that everyone else had to copy.

    1. Steve Todd
      Stop

      Samsung's OWN management

      were saying that their user interface/user experience was crap compared to that of the iPhone. Try reading the memo and see just how worked up they were getting about it.

      BTW, this was a piece of evidence that Samsung had managed to get excluded, but then one of the Samsung lawyers mentioned it during questioning and left the door open to getting it introduced. They're not acquitting themselves glowingly so far.

    2. QuinnDexter

      How many phones were Samsung selling when iPhone launched in comparison with what Apple shipped? Perhaps they saw Apple selling squillions of phones more then them with a shit model and realised they had to do something to address that, and tried to emulate what Apple had done. If you're a business you watch what your competitors do and react if you need to

      1. Steve Todd
        Stop

        The problem wasn't that Samsung reacted to Apple

        it was that the WAY in which they reacted. Memos like this show that they reacted by comparing everything they did with the iPhone, and then made their devices a close to Apple's as possible. If they'd used stock Android then many of these infringement claims wouldn't exist.

    3. dssf

      rounded corners

      If Apple went ino brid(g)e construction, they'd deign design to patent trusses, cantilevers, and arches.

      Rounded corners exist in ships, cars, trains, equipment racks, police and military radios.... Even hand guns and tools have ergonomics built in. Apple, should hammers look likespoos when competitors arrive to the biz? Should toothbrushes look like syringes to avoid look and feel law suits? Tens of thousands of machined and hand made items that must withstand stresses from torsion, flexation, tension, compression, and repeated drops and bumps.

      Sigh, Apple. Give it a rest. Please. Just get out of the litigation biz and focus on making innovative amalgams of the hardly-seen. But, expect to be superficially and functionally imitated. Sue if your blueprints are stolen, not if general ideas are.

      1. Steve Todd
        FAIL

        Still not getting it

        If Apple went into bridge building then they'd design something with existing engineering elements like trusses, cantilevers etc, but put together in combinations that no-one had thought of before. They'd patent certain combinations and the way that the resulting bridge looked.

        The result would be that others were still free to design their own bridges, providing they didn't look too much like the Apple design patent or use the patented combinations.

        Don't forget that things like bridge designs have been patented in the past.

        1. dssf

          Re: Still not getting it

          Got me... I forgot or neglected to finish sentence 1 with "implementation" and easily u dermined my own opener.

          Thanks for calling out on that.

  9. Wile E. Veteran
    FAIL

    What are they smoking?

    That must be some powerful drug the Apple folks are on.

    Certainly competitors are concerned when someone introduces a new product that upsets their market but this claim is childish, ridiculous and delusional.

    I still say my 1997 Palm Pilot Pro does everthing the iWhatever does, just in a cruder, more limited way dictated by the technology available in 1997. Wifi did not exist then, 3G did not exist then, Bluetooth did not exist then, USB did not exist then and capacitive touch screens were prohibitively expensive as were color LCD displays. Now those technologies are ubiquitous and incorporating them in a recent product is a no-brainer.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What are they smoking?

      In that case you can't say that your palm pilot did everything the iwhatever does. It didn't have the technology.

      What are you smoking?

    2. Mark .

      Re: What are they smoking?

      I agree entirely. In general, the reason why some technologies become more prevalent only after a certain time is not because no one thought of it, or because of Apple, but because of improvements in that technology made by other companies (i.e., the ones making the tech like CPUs and touchscreens like Samsung, not the ones who stick it in a box like Apple).

      The Apple fan points to any technology that is in use now, and wasn't in use X number of years ago, and asserts it to be "because of Apple" for no reason other than the observation that it's in use now, and wasn't in use in the past. A classic Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

      Same with tablets. They didn't work 10 years ago, because the lack of widespread wifi and 3G networks made a computing device without any media inputs near useless (we were having enough trouble with floppy drives still on PCs, and they didn't start dropping CD/DVD drives until later in the 2000s); and the cost of touchscreens and lack of portable computing power made it hard. Apple fans tell us Android users should thank Apple, but I'll do that the day I see an Apple fan thanking companies like ARM and Samsung. But you know what? I never ever do.

      "3G did not exist then"

      It's interesting that even those of us who criticise the Iphone can overestimate how good it actually was: in fact, it didn't have 3G either. Lack of 3G crippled the Iphone just like your 1997 Palm, but it doesn't have the excuse of the Palm because by 2007, 3G was mainstream and common even in low end feature phones.

      (I also remember the absurd amount of media hype in the UK when the Iphone finally got 3G, years after every other make of phone.)

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: What are they smoking?

        Don't forget the most important technological improvement, batteries and chips, more specifically the price and capacity of rechargeable batteries and the performance per watt of processors. The old Palms of yore didn't run a 16 MHz 68k with, IIRC, 1 whole MB ram for the original Pilot Pro. Damn, I really miss that old thing. I going to have to pick some weekend and rifle sort through the boxes in the garage over a beer or three just to see if it got saved for posterity.

    3. Mage Silver badge

      Re: What are they smoking?

      Capacitive touch screens were not that expensive, Just unwanted. Even Apple brought out a product that used resistive touch screen because to them the handwriting was important (Newton). Rather than improve it they scrapped it.

      Palm then dominated that market and got the handwriting / sketching going well. It was some good deals with operators for 3G Data that made the original iPhone more attractive than other smart phones. Before the iPhone came out I couldn't afford to use 3G for data except in an emergency or if work was paying (PCMCIA data card on PC).

      Phones before the iPhone had rounded corners and flat fronts. Not all were candybars.

      Marketing and partnered deals and the Apple "cool" factor made the original iPhone a success. The HW was all commodity standard designs and the iOS style GUI was done before too.

  10. Ilsa Loving
    FAIL

    *facepalm*

    I love how everyone keeps focusing on the details and putting up these fantastic strawmen that they are just tickled to phlegm to burn down.

    Of COURSE apple didn't "invent" 3G. Or rectangular devices with rounded corners. Or touch screens (although they were pretty near the forefront with the Newton, as much as Jobs refused to admit). Or all the other stupid niggly details that everyone seems to be so up in arms about.

    The crux of the argument is that, as a whole, Samsung did everything they could to muddy the words and make their devices look as close to iDevice as possible without being a like-for-like copy. Revised icons that were similar to iOS. Hardware details that were similar to iDevice. Hell, they even duplicated the packaging to very closely mimic the iDevice packaging, right down to a white box with a plain image of a SamDevice on it. (Where Mr. Obviously came up with that paper bag thing is beyond my comprehension.)

    And as stupid as you may think consumers to be to confuse one device that clearly says Samsung while another has an Apple logo, according to Best Buy that mistake was made repeatedly, which is strong evidence in Apple's favour that Samsung knew this would happen and was banking on that behaviour.

    And one final thing I feel compelled to point out... We are not in the jury. Our opinions on the matter have as much value as the dog manure that you accidentally step in on the sidewalk because we were too busy texting.

    The fact that people are ready to pop a vein about it just makes me roll my eyes.

    Fail icon. For certain people commenting on this and other similar articles. You know who you are.

    1. sueme2

      Re: *facepalm*

      groklaw has a pointer to a number of places where you can get PD icons which look very very similar to the Apple and Samsung pix. Did Apple copy any of them? No. Did Samsung? No. They are generic with alterations according to the prevaling fashion.......... You just would not want to be seen on the street with yesterday's icon set.

    2. Chet Mannly

      Re: *facepalm*

      ">The crux of the argument is:

      >Revised icons that were similar to iOS"

      Err no they weren't - they were far more colourful (even cartoonish?) than anything in iOS

      ">Hardware details that were similar to iDevice."

      You mean a rectangular touchscreen like smartphones and PDA's were using for a decade before that? Or the faster CPU, more RAM and higher resolution screen than the iphone had?

      ">Hell, they even duplicated the packaging to very closely mimic the iDevice packaging, right down to a white box with a plain image of a SamDevice on it."

      The Galaxy S (the subject of this court case) came in a BLACK box.

      *facepalm* indeed!

      1. Ilsa Loving
        FAIL

        Re: *facepalm*

        >Err no they weren't - they were far more colourful (even cartoonish?) than anything in iOS

        >You mean a rectangular touchscreen like smartphones and PDA's were using for a decade before that? Or the faster CPU, more RAM and higher resolution screen than the iphone had?

        >The Galaxy S (the subject of this court case) came in a BLACK box.

        The case is NOT limited to just the Galaxy S. Apple is accusing Samsung of ripping off their entire product line, including the iPad.

        I suggest doing a google image search for "samsung tablet packaging". You will find countless examples of the Samsung Galaxy Tab in a white box, with just the tablet showing. Even the text "Samsung Galaxy Tab" is in a very light grey, making it more difficult to notice unless you were carefully looking at the box. (Which people should be doing anyway, but that's another matter...)

        Finally, the fact that you're bringing up things like CPU and RAM shows that you arn't actually following the case at all, and are instead just spewing knee-jerk vitriol because you don't like Apple.

        Here's a dated, but nice summary of the court case, where you will find that the issues revolve primarily around trade dress:

        http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

        For the record, I agree that Apple really needs a bit of humility beat into them.

        Fail icon, because the fail just keeps on rolling...

  11. Mr. Great Sage
    Mushroom

    Lets harken back to the early 2000's...

    ...and recall all the patent lawsuits over the different flip phone manufactures. Each vying that the other copied the design of being able to flip open your phone. Not to mention the similar UI elements, like the settings button, the contacts button, and the ability to take a photo. It was insane, all you ever heard about was phones being banned left and right for copyright infringement.

    Oh wait that never happened.

    1. BorkedAgain
      Thumb Up

      Re: Lets harken back to the early 2000's...

      No it never happened, because everyone had seen the prior art every week in gorgeous, sixties colours:

      *Flicks communicator* - "Scotty, three to beam aboard..."

  12. henrydddd
    Thumb Down

    Apple: Samsung was in 'crisis' over our iPhone awesomeness

    A better title would be

    Apple: Apple is in 'crisis' over our iPhone awesomeness

  13. Homer 1
    IT Angle

    iPhone's have the same physical design as...

    Flatscreen TVs, invented by Donald Bitzer, Gene Slottow and Robert Wilson at the University of Illinois in July 1964. The first production flatscreen TVs were released by Panasonic in 1997, 13 years before the iPad, 10 years before the iPhone and 4 years before the iPod.

    Bear in mind that Apple's sole complaint is based on the physical design of Samsung's mobile products (design patents) ... a design that, like Apple's, merely borrows from that of flatscreen TVs.

    Now go look at any flatscreen TV or monitor.

    Frankly I find it incredible that this case even came to court. Seriously, I just don't get it. There's no case to answer. Apple's claim is completely bogus.

    1. Mark .

      Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

      I actually once saw someone point to a flatscreen TV, and actually say "That looks like a giant Ipad!" I mean yes, technically he was right, but talk about getting things in reverse...

      1. dssf

        Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

        I might have been one of those posters:

        http://m.cnet.com/reviews/samsung-syncmaster-206bw/32327974

        http://www.pcworld.com/product/30862/samsung_syncmaster_206bw.html

        http://www.macworld.com/article/1061135/samsung206bw.html

        Heck, Samsung could argue thag Apple munged the idea of the LCD and phones. Samsung should argue that their Tab is a tabletizationof their LCD model 206bw.

        Samsung needs to pull out a Hail Mary and end this decisively.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

          Those monitor reviews all date from after the iPhone launch. What's your point again?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

      First production flat screen TV - Sinclair Radionics FTV1, a flat-screen TV launched in the UK in 1984. Your facts are as valid as your straw man argument

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

        "Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

        First production flat screen TV - Sinclair Radionics FTV1, a flat-screen TV launched in the UK in 1984. Your facts are as valid as your straw man argument"

        W O W, don't you ralise that you've just proven the whole agrument?

        Apple RIPPED OFF EXISTING IDEAS, and only those stupid enough to purchase their tech are blind to that fact.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: iPhone's have the same physical design as...

          "W O W, don't you ralise that you've just proven the whole agrument?"

          Look at a picture of the FTV1. It doesn't look like an iPhone. I rest my 'agrument'.

      2. Homer 1
        Headmaster

        Re: Sinclair Radionics FTV1

        The Sinclair Radionics FTV1 was a "flat" CRT, and as such not truly flat, but merely slightly flatter than traditional CRT. The intrinsic nature of firing a beam of electrons, from a gun fixed at a single point, to a remote surface, means that surface must necessarily be curved, at least to some extent, to compensate for the angle of the beam.

        As such, Sinclair's gizmo was not the first production flatscreen TV, primarily because it wasn't actually flat. Moreover its aesthetic design doesn't really have anything to do with the design that Apple blatantly copied from flatscreen TV companies like Panasonic, which was after all the whole point of my comparison.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    HeHe...

    " Strategy chief Justin Denison said the language of the document was hyperbole and it sounded like senior execs were just trying to jazz employees up and get them motivated."

    Motivated to do what, copy? :D

    1. Tom 35
      Happy

      Re: HeHe...

      No, to produce something better then the iPhone and put Apple is in 'crisis'.

  15. sueme2
    Go

    expert witness says apple can't win

    Apple's witness: industrial designer Peter Bressler, said this is like "compare peanut butter to turkey" when pressed about the design differences between PhoneA and PhoneS. In other words, PhoneA is N*O*T a copy of PhoneS. So, in my books that stops Apple's trade dress suit dead in its tracks. Go short on Apple, they just lost beeeliioons and beellions.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You can say a lot of negative things about Samsung.

    But Apple is the one faking evidence in their trials to make their case stronger.

    That says it all boys and girls.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You can say a lot of negative things about Samsung.

      That is a specific and possibly libelous accusation, so, examples - please.

      1. Homer 1
        Headmaster

        Re: You can say a lot of negative things about Samsung.

        Examples:

        "It seems that Apple can't stop Photoshopping evidence in its EU lawsuit against Samsung. We already saw that the company used trickery in its side-by-side comparison of the iPad and Galaxy Tab; now it appears that it's fudging the comparison between the iPhone and Galaxy S as well."

        1. a_been
          Facepalm

          Re: homer 1

          Both the German and Dutch courts accepted the Apple slides a valid for use as evidence. If Samsung could have proven the slides as invalid they would have but they coudn't. You will have to explain why the courts had no problem with the slides and why Samsung couldn't get them thrown out and didn't even appeal. Otherwise your evidence is "some guy in the pub said ... "

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: homer 1

            "Both the German and Dutch courts accepted the Apple slides a valid for use as evidence"

            And the UK courts LAUGHED Apple out of the court room!

          2. Homer 1
            Headmaster

            Re: "courts accepted"

            What the "courts accepted" has no bearing on the fact that Apple's "evidence" was not a true representation of Samsung's product, it was an image manipulated, on two separate occasions, to favour Apple's claim.

            Courts are not infallible, and in this case they seem to have chosen to ignore Apple's blatant deception. They also seem to have chosen to ignore the palpably obvious prior art that renders Apple's bogus claims entirely moot. Apple did not invent the flat display in a rectangular frame with bevelled edges. Period.

            Thankfully the same travesty of justice did not happen in the UK.

  17. Dazed and Confused
    Happy

    icons

    I seem to remember that the last time a Judge decided that ... well lets call them company M's icons were too similar to ... well lets call them company A. He decided to value a icon at $5. Even allowing for inflation it isn't going to hurt anyone.

  18. Thorfkin
    Mushroom

    I think there are larger issues at stake here than just whether or not Samsung copied Apple's product design. I think the real issue that this case will influence is whether or not Apple should have exclusivity over the tablet market. There concept of tablet computing in general is not an Apple invention. There have been numerous prior art examples. The data pads everyone carried around in Star Trek The Next Generation is a prominent example. The concept of portable tablet based computing has been around for a long time. Many manufacturers have tried to produce devices that fit this segment but I grudgingly admit that Apple was the first one to market with a device that truly broke the geek-only barrier. Bringing existing touch screen tech and online app distribution together in a user friendly way was the key in my opinion. But despite this I don't believe Apple should have exclusive rights to tablet computing in general. That's what this trial is really about. Apple is on a quest to eliminate Android so that they can exclusively control the tablet and smart phone markets. Samsung was just the most vulnerable enemy and represents an early step in that long term goal. I don't believe Apple has genuinely earned the right to own exclusivity over tablet and phone computing. And I don't believe it's in the consumer's best interest for Apple to win this trial.

    1. Joseph Lord

      @Thorfkin and others

      @Thorkin

      I really don't think that is remotely on the cards even if Apple win it will basically mean that you shouldn't make something so similar that you need to read the logos to know it isn't an iPad.

      Apple may want to ban other tablets but I don't think that they are even hoping for that let alone expecting it. The design elements that they are claiming are really quite specific and may be too specific even to catch the Samsung products and stock Android may even be safe.

      @Many anti-Apple commenters

      There seem to be a number of comments with long lists of features and technology which were not unique or first deployed on the iPhone. I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. I think that you are making the mistake of seeing products in terms of a list of features rather than a complete product with the overall user experience being key. If a pure list of features was the key thing Nokia would have blown Apple out of the phone market with Symbian and Symbian would have destroyed Android too.

      Where I see the iPhone as being a major step forward was the quality with which the features were put together and a new ease of use that brought the ability to use the features to many more users. It was also the first phone with a browser which made browsing full websites easy, practical and even enjoyable. I did use a Symbian Nokia for at time and it was not the same, even with Opera.

      1. Stylee

        Re: @Thorfkin and others

        You're right about the ease of use and overall user experience of the iphone being key to its success (also fantastic marketing) - but this is not why Apple is suing Samsung. Apple are claiming that Samsung imitated the look and feel of their phone.

        Apple was so successful with their take on the touchscreen phone, for the reasons you mention, that people forgot what came before - even if it was poorly implemented by comparison. In the years before iphones, people would look at my HP H6340 and say, "what the hell is that?" After the iphone was released people would look at it and say, "Is that an iphone?" It was silver, black and had a green telephone icon too, after all.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Many anti-Apple commenters

        " I think that you are making the mistake of seeing products in terms of a list of features rather than a complete product with the overall user experience being key."

        Apple are not saying Samsung copied their "overall user experience"! Sorry.

        If you really believe that iOS brings a better "overall user experience" your wrong.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If anyone would like to know what Apple are actually suing Samsung for ...

    ... read this -

    http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If anyone would like to know what Apple are actually suing Samsung for ...

      And if you'd like to read Samsung's 263-page internal analysis of their phones vs the iPhone, it's here -

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/44

  20. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Thumb Down

    This punter...

    ..doesn't really care who is right or wrong, only in a phone that works well. Everything else in this soap opera is a sideshow. Oh, and the U.S. patent system should be publicly hauled over the coals for allowing such minutae as gestures to be owned - patently ridiculous. Has anyone patented this one yet? (icon)

  21. Richard 81
    Meh

    Like most monsters, Apple are trying to rewrite their history.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Still nothing has been said that supports iPhone.

    It looks bad, the UI is bad, the whole ecosystem is bad.

    Apple just ripped off existing ideas, they present NOTHING NEW.

    Boohoo ladies, get over yourselves.

    1. Toothpick
      Trollface

      Millions of punters love the iPhone. Millions of punters love the UI. Millions of punters love the ecosystem. In your mind every one of them are sheep are they?

      It looks bad. In your OPINION. You seem to think that the glass & metal construction looks like it's from a kitchen circa 2000. What's your obsession with kitchens?

      The UI is bad. In your OPINION. You always compare this to an 80s wallpaper. Have you some sort of wallpaper fetish? You believe though that the more complicated the UI is the better it is. A simple to use OS means you don't need to be geek to use it. Or should smartphones be reserved for propellorheads only?

      The ecosystem is bad. Again in your OPINION. Personally I don't mind it. What's your alternative?

      Do you really believe that if any one of the above three was 'bad' that the iPhone would have sold that well?

      An interior designer with a penchant for kitchens who thinks a GUI spoils the whole OS experience.

      Boohoo Obviously! Get over yourself.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Millions of sheep CAN be wrong.

  23. El Presidente
    Stop

    This first iPhone... Vs HP iPaqs 10+ years ago ...

    "The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007" (wikipedia)

    Here's a picture of the screen of an iPaq from 2003 .. almost 10 years ago when most of the Apple fanbois here and apple lawyers were still in nappies, judging from their ridiculous arguments.

    http://user-guides.mobiletopsoft.com/hp/hp-ipaq-h4000-series-user-guide/img/hp-ipaq-h4000-series-user-guidex42x1.jpg

    There's a touch screen, icons and the device has rounded corners. Three years before the iPhone.

    Search google images, even the very first iPaqs from 15 years ago had touch screens, icons and rounded corners and at the time were as useful to me as they were revolutionary to the end user.

    The idea that Apple invented any of these or has a monopoly on them is demonstrably wrong and truly laughable. The real danger in this case is that the judge, through technological ignorance and isolation from IT in general, might believe the Apple woo and hand Apple some leverage.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This first iPhone... Vs HP iPaqs 10+ years ago ...

      I looked at that image and thrught "OMG" that's a dead-ringer for an iPhone screen!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This first iPhone... Vs HP iPaqs 10+ years ago ...

      See more here - www.specsavers.com

      1. El Presidente
        Facepalm

        Re: See more here - www.specsavers.com

        But that's what Apple does:

        1) Find something that already exists

        2) Leave the hardware as is but make it look "pretty"

        3) Sell an fantasy lifestyle idea of superiority to the susceptible and the gullible

        4) Add 50% markup over the original "ugly"

        5) Claim to be doing original work

        6) Profit

        7) Litigate the competition with absurdities

        Plus: make the units non user serviceable, no battery swaps, stupidly expensive proprietary leads, cables and adapters, planned in obsolescence, faults as features, charge 400% markup for basic RAM upgrades and 500% for hard drives ...

        Apple buyers are mugs and if RBS are and IT company with a banking license then Apple is a marketing powerhouse with some pretty looking if sub standard products.

        1. Rocket_Rabbit
          Thumb Up

          Re: See more here - www.specsavers.com

          I was looking for the nail head, but it has truly whacked :)

          What apple does best is marketing and that is where it simply destroys any and all competition.

          In truth, it doesn't matter how much Android looks/feels like Apple, the fact it it ISN'T Apple and for the many Fanbois who buy into the high fives at the stores and camping out all night so they can been seen in public being cool (?), Apple is all that matters.

    3. Philip Lewis
      Joke

      Re: This first iPhone... Vs HP iPaqs 10+ years ago ...

      Wow, I am sinply amazed how much that image resembles the iOS interface.

      Thanks for pointing this out, it has altered my complete view of this case.

      Amazing ...

  24. dssf

    Look and Feel Arguments, slihtly o/t re Galaxy S v older iPhone

    http://www.androidauthority.com/apple-says-google-told-samsung-that-galaxy-tab-10-1-looked-much-like-ipad-103868/

    In the photo in the url, there initially does appear to be toomuch resemblance.

    However, i feel that true aspiring iWhaever fans need to:

    1 Find out wth an Apple product actually LOOKS LIKE vs IS

    2 look at the product box and verify the branding

    3 Open the fsking thing IN STORE before going home with it and breaking the seal regretfully

    I think what is ROYALLY infuriating Apple is not so much that the Galaxy S and Tabs resemble the iPhones and iPads, but that Samsung and others had the temerity to significantly increase and improve the screen real estate, forcing Apple to unwillingly do at least these things:

    1 eat (what i think were words of Steve Jobs) words tat the then current iPhone size would be all that any would need

    2 assent to the demand for larger displays, defeating the hoohah of retina, and

    3 painfully dig into its near Everest-size mound of cash to retool to enlarge or resize iThings against Apple's will.

    1. dssf

      Re: Look and Feel Arguments, slihtly o/t re Galaxy S v older iPhone

      http://www.androidtablets.net/forum/android-tablet-news/44040-apple-vs-samsung-quick-summary-new-developments-august-3rd.html

      Might interest some, particularly this bit:

      " Third, Apple is extremely frightened of today's court proceedings because Samsung plans to introduce Apple's closely guarded device specific sales numbers to the court as part of their defense. This of course, will indirectly give it to the public, and Apple doesn't want that. They have filed a motion to block Samsung from releasing this info. They claimed to the court that it will cause “severe harm to Apple” if disclosed. The judge has yet to rule on this."

      Maybe Samsung's Hail Mary could be this: "Your Honor, if they want to keep us from introducing evidence YOU are denying, then THEY have to accept that we'll call on witnesses to the future product specs. Conversely, if they want us to be barred from disclosing the furture products informaiton, then they must capitulate and allow us to introduce to the jury and court the remaining 4 arguments you are preventing us from discussing.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like