# Apple vs Samsung. Smoking gun document found?!



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Anyone see *this*? Document released from the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case. :yikes: 

The huge internal Samsung document from 2010 shows 126 different aspects to their Galaxy S smartphone that were considered areas that needed improvement. 

For every instance, it's compared meticulously to the iPhone. In almost every case, it recommends that the feature should behave more like the iPhone. :lmao:








If this isn't an example of blatant copying of Apple, I don't know what it. It's not like they are coming up with their own suggestions, it's trying to make their product better by literally going over feature by feature and copying ideas from Apple's innovation.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I dont think there is any smoking guns till we hear both sides. It always sounds damning from these high priced lawyers, until you hear what the other high priced lawyer has to say.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

wonderings said:


> I dont think there is any smoking guns till we hear both sides. It always sounds damning from these high priced lawyers, until you hear what the other high priced lawyer has to say.


I haven't heard anything the lawyers have said, just read the document for myself. The fact it's an internal Samsung document is not disputed. It goes line by line, feature by feature pointing out how Apple's innovation is better and how they need to do it like Apple. 

In most cases, I can't believe how hideous Samsung's interface is. It's just like their stupid ads that are playing right now that try to be all like Apple's iPad ads, or the even more ridiculous ad with David Beckham.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

The continually updating iCal icon is one of the ways in which OS X benefitted from iOS features moving to the desktop.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Wasn't the feature implemented in Leopard, before the iPhone OS? 

Mr. Mayor, I fail to see how this topic is Mac related.  

How many of these "ideas" were implemented? Did this memo ever reach Google?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Wasn't the feature implemented in Leopard, before the iPhone OS?


As I recall, it was implemented in Leopard, which was released after the iPhone.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well it's pretty obvious samsung has blatantly copied apple, but they wouldn't be the first company to copy another's OS/features etc. *cough*.

It's really a question of whether they stepped over the line on a patent.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Anyone see *this*? Document released from the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case. :yikes:
> 
> The huge internal Samsung document from 2010 shows 126 different aspects to their Galaxy S smartphone that were considered areas that needed improvement.
> 
> ...


What's particularly telling is that the iPhone is the ONLY phone they are comparing their prototype to. They could be drawing inspiration from ALL of the leading smartphones on the market if they wanted to, but it appears there was only one focus for these "improvements."


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Wasn't the feature implemented in Leopard, before the iPhone OS?


No, I think Tiger did this (it's been a while) but required you to open iCal first, although there was an app or script to automate it.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> No, I think Tiger did this (it's been a while) but required you to open iCal first, although there was an app or script to automate it.


You're right, Tiger did do it. In fact, I think it was there right at the beginning, since iCal's introduction. The idea of an updating Dock icon certainly was there long before the iPhone, even if the mechanism to do it while the app wasn't running wasn't in place yet.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> What's particularly telling is that the iPhone is the ONLY phone they are comparing their prototype to. They could be drawing inspiration from ALL of the leading smartphones on the market if they wanted to, but it appears there was only one focus for these "improvements."


Isn't the iphone the bar to compare to?

What else, the blackberry?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Isn't the iphone the bar to compare to?
> 
> What else, the blackberry?


Exactly. This is why, though Apple appears to act like a spoilt child at times, Steve Jobs may once again be proven right on the money. This document (now available in PDF form, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) must have given Apple attorneys great confidence walking into these proceedings. It's not just that a few patents have been violated, but rather proof that _the whole product from end to end_ has indeed been slavishly copied.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> ....but rather proof that _the whole product from end to end_ has indeed been slavishly copied.


Well, the products don't rally look the same where one could mistake the Samsung phone for an iphone.

All of the issues in the very first link in Mayor's post that I looked at are obvious design issues that shouldn't have been there in the first place, iphone or no iphone.

Isn't the issue if Apple has a valid patent that Samsung has specifically violated in their design?
That the buttons on the keypad need to be legible doesn't require a comparison with the iphone, neither does the fact that the phone should switch to landscape mode if turned in either direction or that windows shouldn't overlap or, or, or.

Sounds to me more that the comparison with iphone was used to emphasize the point - I don't know who calls the shots at Samsung when it comes to functionality and user interface, in out company the Product Manager does, not the design people and if Samsung does have a Product Manager, he or she sure didn't do their job.

But I run into user issues with Apple as well where it seems nobody has even looked at how a feature works, much less tested it.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I'm sure not going to get involved with any Apple/Samsung patent "infringement(s)" that's presently before the US Judge and their court, and maybe he and the US court should just follow the European Germany judge's call and ruling who just told them to basically go play and fight out their differences in their own sandboxes and don't bother disturbing their courtrooms again.

And reading some of the Apple layers notes that they, Samsung, infringed on Apple's patent of having a "small rectangular display device with rounded corners" is just a bit sick and pretty feeble IMHO, and I really question as to how they even got such a patent and other similar rather pathetic patents approved in the first place.

But what I do know and have witnessed, son and his wife both avid Apple Mac users with their MBPros and iPhone etc. just recently purchased a new Samsung Galaxy with a super deal for intended cheap use with Bell in Vancouver where they're moving to in a week or so for three years, and all from what I saw and son showed me can I say the Samsung Galaxy is very impressive, and can do more than their Bell iPhone can.

Son and I both agreed that Apple really needs to pull up their socks for any proper user use with their iPhone in comparison and maybe just get out of the US courtroom and patent BS and spend the saved money or proper R&D.

But history shows that BIG companies with excess money and big lawyers and their associated excessive fees just don't do so - until the countries' judge tells them to poke their differences up their pipe and go fight it out in the children's sandbox!! 

And personally, that's where they should go!! And the Adult's sandbox should be left for real adult legitimate stuff and no US courtroom should be abused by such childish behaviour from Apple nor anyone.

End of my judge's type sermon.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Boy. You entirely missed the point of the highly confidential document. It literally proves that the only design innovations at Samsung came from Apple's designs, not their own. It's not about patenting a "rectangle with rounded corners". It's about stealing every design innovation from another company. What new exactly has Samsung brought to the smartphone design table? There's imitation and then there's outright piracy.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Yawn.... nope, I didn't miss any point of any, excuse me, cough, "highly confidential document" info nor any other such Apple "patent infringement" BS, just as the high German court judge didn't miss any point previously with some presented "evidence" when he finally told both Apple and Samsung to basically grow up and don't ever bother wasting any more court time.

Or do you think he missed the point as well??? Hmmm....???


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

pm-r said:


> Yawn.... nope, I didn't miss any point of any, excuse me, cough, "highly confidential document" info nor any other such Apple "patent infringement" BS, just as the high German court judge didn't miss any point previously with some presented "evidence" when he finally told both Apple and Samsung to basically grow up and don't ever bother wasting any more court time.
> 
> Or do you think he missed the point as well??? Hmmm....???


Ya, you did miss the point. That document was not entered into evidence at the German court, and the German case was decided by a judge, not a jury, on different patent issues. You really should take a look at the document, since it's (yawn) pretty clear you haven't actually read any part of it save for the one page that ehMax provided. The charge of Samsung "slavishly" copying the iPhone detail for detail is pretty hard to refute. Why do you think Samsung's lawyers fought so hard not to have this document admitted as evidence?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> The charge of Samsung "slavishly" copying the iPhone detail for detail is pretty hard to refute.


Not if the basis is that document.

The software verification group at Samsung were simply required to compare the S1 functionality and operation to the iPhone and that's what they did.
The iPhone isn't always better, it's just different.

One of the key questions in my mind is how many of these suggestions were actually implemented and which of those were somewhat unique.
I have gone through the first 60 in the list and for most of them no comparison to the iPhone is necessary to see that the Samsung phone needed more work.
A ton of the issues pointed out are pure design faults that shouldn't have been there in the first place, others one can argue about - do I really need to see all the digits dialed if the number is very long?
No - not really
Telephone sets have a limit how many digits they can display.
And the maximum number a telephone number can have is 20 digits including international access codes and country codes - any digits after that are control digits of some sort which are really meaningless to display or store for re-dialing.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Not if the basis is that document.
> 
> The software verification group at Samsung were simply required to compare the S1 functionality and operation to the iPhone and that's what they did.
> The iPhone isn't always better, it's just different.
> ...


Fair enough; these are design elements that anyone with common sense could figure out. However, if common sense were really common, everyone would have it. The fact that the S1 is being compared ONLY to the iPhone is what makes it hard for Samsung to refute the claim that they were copying the iPhone design-wise. If Samsung were looking for other sources for its inspiration, it would not have used the iPhone as its sole basis of comparison in coming up with recommendations for how to make the S1 better. I imagine a jury would have a hard time digesting the necessity of this one-track source of inspiration as well if Samsung's designers were NOT intent on copying the iPhone.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> The fact that the S1 is being compared ONLY to the iPhone is what makes it hard for Samsung to refute the claim that they were copying the iPhone design-wise. If Samsung were looking for other sources for its inspiration, it would not have used the iPhone as its sole basis of comparison in coming up with recommendations for how to make the S1 better.


How do you know that the S1 was compared ONLY to the iPhone?
This is only one document.
The mandate of the verification group for that activity was obviously to compare the S1 to the iPhone and that's what they did.
There may be other similar documents comparing the S1 to other phones.

You may be thinking of comparisons that magazines and websites publish where they compare a number of similar products side-by-side. But that's not how companies work internally, they compare their product to the competition one-by-one.
My company does and it's not Samsung 
But I must say in our comparison, our product doesn't have nearly as many design deficiencies than what I read here. Really....the very first item - with landscape that only gets activated if the phone is rotated one way but not the other way? And that only happens in memo and calculator. That to me is a bug - no need to compare that to anything.

Second item - OK, a comparison here is appropriate but having a larger display area is hardly innovative.

Third item - Poor layout and small font, again that's obvious and doesn't really require any comparison.

All the graphics of the S1 in that iteration are pisspoor, like an 8-year old designed them.

I don't think there is any problem for the Samsung lawyers to paint a totally different picture what this document was all about. I expected Apple to drag out some valid patented design innovations that Samsung copied, not some software verification report that was meant to specifically compare the S1 to the iPhone..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

krs said:


> *How do you know that the S1 was compared ONLY to the iPhone?
> This is only one document.*
> The mandate of the verification group for that activity was obviously to compare the S1 to the iPhone and that's what they did.
> There may be other similar documents comparing the S1 to other phones.
> ...


excellent point. I don't know that this is a "smoking gun".(it -could- be...)

Let's face it, no one needs this document to see the similarities, and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that someone at samsung studied the iphone to see where their product could be improved to be as good as the iphone.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

What struck me while skimming through this document was the extent to which the Samsung reviewers were able to be objective and critical about their company's device. 

It's clear that they were highlighting elements of the iPhone UI that were superior to their own and making recommendations for improvement. Would be interesting to know whether they undertook a similar exercise with other devices.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

crawford said:


> What struck me while skimming through this document was the extent to which the Samsung reviewers were able to be objective and critical about their company's device.
> 
> It's clear that they were highlighting elements of the iPhone UI that were superior to their own and making recommendations for improvement. Would be interesting to know whether they undertook a similar exercise with other devices.


If such documents comparing Samsung devices to other companies' smartphones exist, it would be incumbent on Samsung's lawyers to show them. Otherwise they just look like big old copycats, using only one competitor for inspiration. That represents theft of intellectual property if they implemented those same designs in creating their own product. Maybe that's why the Samsung lawyer was begging and pleading (and embarrassing himself, I'd say) to allow tangential evidence that "Apple copies too."


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

And here we go again:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08...inger-for-apples-mac-mini/?source=yahoo_quote


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)




----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

Have you looked at the recently released Safari 6?

Apple copied Firefox's stupid idea of hiding the http / https.
Apple copied the stupid unified url bar / search field so you can't just type the base url and have the ".com", etc. filled in automatically.
Apple copied the stupid result where clicking on the url bar highlights everything instead of setting the insertion point.

What Apple didn't copy was how Firefox lets the user configure these settings if they don't like the defaults.

At least Samsung is copying to make their products better. Apple's copying results in a crappier user experience.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

krs said:


> Well, the products don't rally look the same where one could mistake the Samsung phone for an iphone.


but apparently Samsung's tablet is undistinguishable from the iPad!

Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

pm-r said:


> And reading some of the Apple layers notes that they, Samsung, infringed on Apple's patent of having a "small rectangular display device with rounded corners" is just a bit sick and pretty feeble IMHO, and I really question as to how they even got such a patent and other similar rather pathetic patents approved in the first place.


Your falling for Samsung's executives trying to win the case in the public opinion with lies. It's nowhere near about patenting a rectangle display. It's what's on the display, how you interact with it and use it. 

I really got a laugh out of that Samsung video trying to say that's what the patent case was about, rectangles. LOL. They're in denial...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> And here we go again:
> 
> Samsung's Chromebox: A dead ringer for Apple's Mac Mini - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Tech


There have been other PCs in the past that copied the Mini form factor at the time, eg

Dell Zino HD Mini PC Impressive With 10 Personalize Casing Colors - Tech Updates


so what is different now?
At least the Samsung has some USB ports in the front which I wish the Mini had.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

biovizier said:


> Have you looked at the recently released Safari 6?
> 
> Apple copied Firefox's stupid idea of hiding the http / https.
> Apple copied the stupid unified url bar / search field so you can't just type the base url and have the ".com", etc. filled in automatically.
> ...


I can't comment on your specifics, but I agree with your last statement.

From a user perspective and user experience, Apple is heading downhill pretty fast.
I haven't seen that many Apple screw-ups in such a short time for a long while.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> but apparently Samsung's tablet is undistinguishable from the iPad!
> 
> Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads


Am I looking at the wrong Samsung tablet?
How can people not distinguish between it and the ipad? Different size, different form factor and one says "Samsung" in pretty large letters


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Samsung makes a 10.1" version that's remarkably similar to the iPad.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Am I looking at the wrong Samsung tablet?
> How can people not distinguish between it and the ipad? Different size, different form factor and one says "Samsung" in pretty large letters


Yup, you're right. Not even the same island in the background behind that icon grid over top of that dock-looking thing at the bottom.

I once had a student who tried to submit his original poetry assignment by taking lines from other poets and then changing one word in each line, not realizing the modified line was was still easily searchable in Google. He did not pass the assignment.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> There have been other PCs in the past that copied the Mini form factor at the time, eg
> 
> Dell Zino HD Mini PC Impressive With 10 Personalize Casing Colors - Tech Updates
> 
> ...


Has Samsung ever come up with an original design of its own?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Has Samsung ever come up with an original design of its own?


Who could forget this gem?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

krs said:


> Am I looking at the wrong Samsung tablet?
> How can people not distinguish between it and the ipad? Different size, different form factor and one says "Samsung" in pretty large letters


Yeah, it might help if you used similarly sized tablets. As crawford says, they make a 10.1".










They look very similar to me - hard to notice the dimly printed "SAMSUNG" on the black border. Or you could interpret it as Samsung making licensed iPads (not that anyone would know Apple doesn't license the iPad or the iOS).


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Not that it's all Samsung's fault, I blame Google (Android) partly. All of sudden someone comes up with a "NEW" OS (yeah right, it's absolutely new and doesn't copy any elements of Windows or MacOS/iOS - I'm being sarcastic here) after Apple and Microsoft settle their differences, what just 10 years prior (It was in the late 1990's I believe). It's pretty hard to create a new OS without copying something that everyone is familiar with.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Not that it's all Samsung's fault, I blame Google (Android) partly. All of sudden someone comes up with a "NEW" OS (yeah right, it's absolutely new and doesn't copy any elements of Windows or MacOS/iOS - I'm being sarcastic here) after Apple and Microsoft settle their differences, what just 10 years prior (It was in the late 1990's I believe). It's pretty hard to create a new OS without copying something that everyone is familiar with.


Odd that you should say that, since smartphones and tablets looked nothing like they do now until the iPhone and iPad came along. It's one thing to be "inspired" by others, but it's quite another to copy their answers word for word when the teacher isn't looking.

Suing Samsung and Motorola is the first step toward ultimately suing Google, since it is Google who designs the software for Android, though the individual companies can tweak it. If Apple loses this case, or at least doesn't win on the major points, it doesn't really give any company the incentive to come up with its own original marketable designs for anything since anyone else can come along and steal them with impunity.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

krs said:


> There have been other PCs in the past that copied the Mini form factor at the time, eg
> 
> Dell Zino HD Mini PC Impressive With 10 Personalize Casing Colors - Tech Updates
> 
> ...


Compare the bottoms and tell me Samsung didn't copy Apple. Or are you going to tell us you can't make a small PC without a round access cover?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

hayesk said:


> Compare the bottoms and tell me Samsung didn't copy Apple. Or are you going to tell us you can't make a small PC without a round access cover?


Yeah - that round access cover on the Samsung one struck me too.
Just like the new flatter Mini with integral power.

But a circular screw in access plate isn't unique to the Mini (and Samsung), I have seen that on other products - not PCs mind you.
Question is when does one draw the line in what is legally allowed and what is not.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Yeah, it might help if you used similarly sized tablets. As crawford says, they make a 10.1".


Yeah, google failed me,
I typed in Samsung Galaxy tab vs ipad ans the first image page gave a bunch of pictures of the different sized ones.

But even if I pick the right two to compare:










Size is similar but there are enough differences when I find it hard to understand how people confuse the two.
Probably because iPad is formost in every ones mind with all the hype and advertising and most people didn't even know Samsung made something similar. I sure didn't.

It's really no different than comparing two 23-inch wide screen monitors with a black housing. If mine didn't have the manufacturers name on the front edge it could be anyones.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

krs said:


> Yeah, google failed me,
> I typed in Samsung Galaxy tab vs ipad ans the first image page gave a bunch of pictures of the different sized ones.
> 
> But even if I pick the right two to compare:
> ...


Problem is, you are too educated... I've seen people present with Motorola Xoom's, Playbooks and Galaxys referring to them all as iPads. iPad is to tablets as Jeep is to off road vehicles.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> iPad is to tablets as Jeep is to off road vehicles.


...and Kleenex is to facial tissues

Right on


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Personally I think the "smoking gun" is that both Apple *and Google* warned Samsung that they were likely infringing on Apple patents several years ago and the company didn't listen.

You can argue about whether Apple should have patents on this or that if you want, but the fact is they do. They were among the first with the whole package of what we now call "a smartphone" together, and they patented the heck out of it. If you want to contest that go right ahead, but you'll have to argue each individual patent with the ITC and USPTO. Have fun.

In the meantime, Apple has these patents. And they are very comprehensive. There's a slideshow floating around the web just today that Apple presented to Samsung in part one of their warning to the company, and it presents a very comprehensive view of the many areas and patents where Google (and to a much lesser extent Samsung) are, in Apple's view, infringing.

Is this slideshow 100% accurate? Hard to say until a court agrees, but if it's even half right then Jobs was entirely correct in his assessment of Android.

The point, however, is that both the court and a jury are likely to look very dimly on a company that:

a. CLEARLY makes products (and other things) deliberately designed to look as much like the Apple product as possible. Ever been in a Samsung retail store?

b. Was warned by both Apple *and Google* that they were risking litigation for infringing and ignored the warnings

c. Was offered a non-litigious way out of its infringement and again chose to ignore the option

d. Oh, and I almost forgot: has predicated its defense on a "wah, other people did it too" premise -- weak sauce at best -- and tried its darndest to turn the trial into a circus and is now actively shooting for a mistrial and spending most of its time setting the stage for an appeal. Don't underestimate the jury's ability to notice this.

Smaller-minded people can argue all day about any one minute detail, but the bigger picture (that I believe the jury and judge already understand) is right there in those three bullet points. Not hard to grasp really.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

How exactly do these numbers square with the claims I keep reading about how Android is "dominating" the market? Especially if Samsung's products are by far in the lead among Android phones and tablets?



> UNVEILED: An Inside Look at Apple and Samsung’s Sales Numbers
> 
> By Emily Knapp | More Articles
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

On a side note it was noted in the trial that Microsoft licensed the same designed patents Samsung has not for their surface tablet...


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> On a side note it was noted in the trial that Microsoft licensed the same designed patents Samsung has not for their surface tablet...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone


Yeah, I think that adds a great deal of validity to Apple's irritation at the unsanctioned use of its patents and whether these matters are in fact "patentable."


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> Problem is, you are too educated... I've seen people present with Motorola Xoom's, Playbooks and Galaxys referring to them all as iPads. iPad is to tablets as Jeep is to off road vehicles.


Yes, you'd have to take someone who's field isn't computers, who doesn't keep up on the latest trends in the computer industry.

As well, krs is still focusing on the look. The patents being infringed upon have more to do with the use. Various finger gestures, how the OS reacts to things, etc...

krs, I suggest you read the latest news/rumors on the trial:
Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bradhaddin81 said:


> Well I will go with IPhone because it is more user friendly and it is totally a technology which is not used by any other person.



That's iPhone. Small i. And what's with all the dead threads, Brad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Anyone see *this*? Document released from the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case. :yikes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I always loved this information, John. It's like, could they be more blatant in their "slavish copying" of a successful product?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Anyone see *this*? Document released from the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case. :yikes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I always come back to this post when some fandroid proclaims how "innovative" Samsung is compared to Apple. Yeah....no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

