* Posts by hjb

8 posts • joined 20 Sep 2011

Apple, Samsung begin battle for billions in US patent smackdown


Re: @Mark . - Not getting any better


"the Galaxy S line progressed they got less and less like the iPhone"

Sure S2 to S3 was a dramatic change in designwise (I dont know what you mean by 'got less and less like' though). I also think Samsung deliberately changed their design in S3. But can you blame Samsung in this? I would do the same even though I used my original design in previous models, because a company with deep pocket is comming after me with nonsence patents for "INJUNCTIONS" for god sake. (remember injunction means dead in this area)


Re: You can't patent rounded corners

Steve, I suggest you to read Samsung's brief. Samsung said they registered their design in late 2006, and had UI design in 2006 summer. If that is evidenced in the court, it is obvious that Samsung did not copy iPhone. We will see what Samsung would bring to the court.


Re: You can't patent rounded corners

Samsung had their own phone design (f700) and UI, before the first iPhone was released. Did you read Samsung Trial Brief? There are some excellent points.


Jury will hear Samsung wrongly trashed emails in patent trial


There are some interesting details in Samsung's Trial Brief.

On page 4&5, it says

"In order to distract from the weakness of its infringement claims, Apple offers misguided allegations of copying that are refuted by evidence of Samsung‘s independent creation. Prior to the iPhone‘s announcement in January 2007, Samsung was already developing numerous products and models with the same design features that Apple now claims were copied from the iPhone. In the summer of 2006, Samsung began designing its next generation of mobile phones, based on the market trend of ever-increasing screen size. At that time, Samsung‘s designers envisioned a basic design: a simple, rounded rectangular body dominated by a display screen with a single physical button on the face. For example, internal Samsung design presentations from the summer of 2006 showed the following designs Samsung was considering:

Id. One of these designs became the Samsung F700 phone, which was the subject of a Korean design registration application in December 2006, a month before Apple unveiled the iPhone. Tellingly, Apple at first included Samsung‘s F700 in its indiscriminant ―copying allegations, but later withdrew its infringement charges once Samsung‘s prior independent creation left Apple no choice but to concede that its copying accusations against that device were false....

Also during this time period during the Summer and Fall of 2006, Samsung designers envisioned a simple icon interface, with rounded rectangular icons arranged in a grid format, appropriately spaced for the size of the screen and the human hand. As one example, an internal Samsung design presentation dated September 14, 2006 showed the following GUI layouts and adjustable orientations:...

As these documents confirm, Samsung independently developed the allegedly copied design features months before Apple had even announced the iPhone. It did not switch its design direction because of the iPhone. Contrary to Apple‘s cherry-picked ―pre and ―post iPhone choices of Samsung‘s phones, Samsung designed and developed large screen smartphones before the iPhone—as well as bar type phones, sliders, and folder phones. Samsung continued to do so after the iPhone as well"

On page 16, it says

"Unlike Apple, which was not a participant in the mobile communications industry until it released the first iPhone in mid-2007, Samsung began developing mobile communications technology in 1991. Samsung has since invested billions of dollars in developing the backbone of the industry and the wireless standards necessary for smartphones. Between 2005 and 2010 alone, Samsung invested $35 billion in research and development relating to telecommunications technology, with over 20,000 engineers worldwide dedicated to telecommunications research and development.

Apple relied heavily on Samsung‘s technology to enter the telecommunications space, and it continues to use Samsung‘s technology to this day in its iPhone and iPad products. For example, Samsung supplies the flash memory, main memory, and application processor for the iPhone. Samsung also manufactures Apple‘s A5X processor and is the sole supplier of the Retina display used in the new iPad. But Apple also uses patented Samsung technology that it has not paid for. This includes standards-essential technology required for Apple‘s products to interact with products from other manufacturers, and several device features that Samsung developed for use in its products."

We all hear what Apple is saying all over the medias, but not Samsung. Now, take a look at the Samsung's Trial Brief, there are quite interesting details.


Defiant Aussies continue to sell contraband Samsung slab


Conflict of Interests?

Google 'Wentworth 5', the barrister firm reprenting Apple in Annabelle Bennett court in Austraila which gave Apple the injunction. Click the first result that leads to Wentworth 5 website, and click 'People'. Among the first 6 senior council members, you could see Stephen Burley SC and David Bennett AC QC

Stephen Burley SC was the barrister representing Apple in the Annabelle Bennett's court. See, bellow link.


David Bennett AC QC is the husband of Australia Federal judge Annabelle Bennett. See bellow link.


Ie, The husband of the Australia Judge Annabelle Bennett is one of the senior council member of a firm (Wentworth 5) who was representing Apple in Annabelle Bennett court? It smells alot!!!


Apple wins for now: no Galaxy 10.1 in Oz


How odd. We need to hear more what the injuction based upon. Apparently, Samsung needs good lawyers. Or it does not matter as politics in legal system exist?


Samsung fights back downunder


Apple registered a Community Design in EU in 2004 which eventually awarded Apple preliminery injuction against Samsung GT 10.1. That Community Design does not look like Ipad nor GT 10.1. So I am so sick of it and the German judge got wrong this time I think. The Community Design was NOT a design of a product but a simple drawing for a future product. Quite scary, isnt it?



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017