Apple pounces on Samsung doc as proof of 'slavish copy' claims
Galaxy would be better if it was more like the iPhone
Apple presented a massive 132-page internal Samsung document that showed the South Korean firm comparing every inch of the iPhone with its early Galaxy S phone in its patent ruckus yesterday.
The internal Samsung report, translated from Korean, goes over every aspect of the iPhone and looks at how the equivalent feature of the S mobe matches up. Unfortunately, it also says none-too-subtly that the S phone would really be a lot better if it was more like the Jesus-mobe.
At every feature discussed, recommendations for improvement are given with reference to the comparison to the Jesus-mobe. In the comparison of both phones' icons, there's also the direction to "Remove the feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design" – which Apple is pretty much reading as backing up its allegations.
Samsung has argued before that of course it looked closely at what Apple was doing, because (duh!) the two firms are competitors so they're going to analyse each others' gear. But this document gives Apple yet more ammunition in its claims that the Korean firm had set out to intentionally copy the Jesus-mobe.
Even if that's true though, the copying would have to be an infringement on Apple's actual patents for Apple to win this case. The jury would also have to accept that Apple had a right to those patents – that they aren't invalid because they're obvious or had been done before.
Smartphones are confusing
Apple is firmly in the driving seat at the moment as its witnesses are up first. The fruity firm's design experts have been testifying to how much Samsung stuff looks like iDevices, with the latest, graphic designer Susan Kare, claiming the gadgets look "confusingly similar".
Kare, a former Apple employee who worked on the icons for the original Macs, backed up Apple claims that buyers would actually be confused by what they were buying.
"There was a big conference table with many phones on it, and some of them were on," Kare said, according to Reuters. "I could see the screen. I went to pick up the iPhone to make a point about the user interface, and I was holding a Samsung.
"I think of myself as someone who's pretty granular about looking at graphics, and I mistook one for the other."
Samsung's attorney first hit back with a tactic that's becoming familiar: finding out how much Apple is paying its witnesses to testify. The South Korean firm's lawyer Charles Verhoeven has already found out that previous witness Peter Bressler got $75,000 for his two days of work and got Kare to reveal that she'll be going home with $80,000. The Korean firm's legal team is clearly hoping that Apple's witnesses won't be so convincing if the jury knows how much they're getting.
Verhoeven also booted up a Samsung phone as he cross-examined Kare so that she could see the first thing that came up: a Samsung logo. He then pointed out that most phones' icons were pretty similar.
"Have you ever seen triangular icons?" he asked.
But Kare pointed to RIM's BlackBerry Torch as an example of a smartphone that had many of the features of an iPhone but which Apple doesn't see as infringing on its design. ®
Gosh, for $80,000 I think I could be confused as well. For five minutes anyway.
Frankly I am rather appalled at the tactics employed. If you have to lie and cheat to get your point across, my feeling is that your point is not worth being considered anyway.
If I were a judge I'd make sure any company coming forth with such behavior be fined a hefty amount for contempt of court.
Two downvotes already. It seems there are people out there who think it is a good idea for people to go round patenting things that are trivial or have been done before.
That's not what the patent system is supposed to be for. It is supposed to be a framework for stimulating innovation, so that people can profit from things they have put a lot of work into without someone else ripping them off. I personally don't think an icon , or having the form-factor of a rounded rectangle should be covered by this. A circuit design of a microprocessor would be an example of something I think should be patentable. This whole Apple vs Samsung affair just demonstrates how lamentably awry the various global patent systems have gone.
"Even if that's true though, the copying would have to be an infringement on Apple's actual patents for Apple to win this case. The jury would also have to accept that Apple had a right to those patents – that they aren't invalid because they're obvious or had been done before."
The crux of the matter.