Print 35 comment(s) - last by kitonne.. on Nov 2 at 3:25 PM

Design changes will land in 2012 product lineup, Samsung hopes they will prevent future suits

[This article contains mild analysis and editorial commentary.  The opinions are those of the author. -Ed.]

In the grand scheme of things, Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) legal war [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] against the world's largest phonemaker, Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO 005930), may prove more of a passing annoyance than a real threat.   The legal harassment has appeared to slightly stifle Samsung's tablet and smart phone sales in the short term, after Apple scored preliminary injunction wins in Australia and Germany.  But in the long term Samsung is already making the adjustments it needs to make its products "lawsuit-proof".

I. Making Adjustments

Samsung's Won-Pyo Hong, executive VP of product strategy at the South Korean electronics giant, took the stage at AsiaD yesterday and the talk quickly turned to the legal dispute.  When asked by Walt Mossberg whether his company was redesigning its hardware and software to avoid litigation, Mr. Hong responded, "The short answer is yes... Our legal department is taking all possible options. As the head of a product portfolio, we have multiple different designs — hardware and UX — so we can immediately provide other solutions."

It was widely known that Samsung tweaked the Android Gallery app, removing a "bounce-back" GUI animation, which Apple appparently patented.  The modifications allowed the Samsung Galaxy S smartphone to escape a sales ban in the Netherlands.

However, Mr. Hong's statement offer the first hint that Samsung may be making a concerted effort in terms of hardware to further distance its product from Apple's.

II. The Technology IP -- Easy to Escape

Unlike Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), whom Samsung was forced to enter an expensive license agreement with, Apple's asserted intellectual property, in our experienced analysis, largely falls under the category of obvious and superfluous.  This is likely why Samsung appears to be content to simply remove it from its mobile devices.  For example, the only technology IP being applied in many Apple's international cases against Samsung is the aforementioned bounceback animation, which you can see below:

Android Gingerbread Gallery App
Samsung/Google's "slavish" infringement [Gallery App]

Browser App Gingerbread
Samsung/Google's "slavish" infringement [Browser App]

If that's the only thing preventing Apple from losing more sales to Samsung, Apple has far bigger issues to worry about.

While its fair to debate the merits of a company copyrighting what amounts to a obvious animation, which a skilled expert could implement within an hour, the good news is that Samsung should be able to modify its products sufficienty to escape Apple's legal wrath.

Of course Apple does have some seemingly heavier-hitting technology patents, like its patents covering multi-touch gestures and multi-touch display manufacturing processes, but it's seemed reluctant use them, likely out of fear of getting them invalidated in the face of the large amount of prior art.

III. Design Poses a Bigger Problem

The more onerous issue is that of the design.

Mr. Hong claimed in the interview that the Galaxy Nexus, which featured a curved face, was not given its unusual design to make it look less like the iPhone.

Apple has asserted sweeping rights to rectangular, minimalist (our terminology, Apple's lawyers use a more verbose description to this effect) tablet and smartphone designs.  It believes that its rights are broad enough to claim Samsung's devices are in infringement of its design patents.  Thus far only one court (Germany) has upheld those claims.

Below I give a brief comparison of the substantial differences between Apple and Samsung's products:

First we look at the Galaxy S, which Apple claims "slavishly" copied the iPhone.  Specifically note that the folowing features are different:
  1. Button count and placement
  2. Connectors
  3. Side profile of phone (note the lip on Samsung's design)
  4. Size of screen and general phone size.
  5. Logo/name placement on body
Smart Phone Comparison

Similar differences can be found between the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad, an early version of which is covered in the final patent.  We've detail these differences between the patent, the actual iPad, and the Galaxy Tab 10. below, which include:
  1. Only Galaxy Tab 10.1 has a camera (compared to the original iPad).
  2. The thickness in the design patent doesn't match the thickness of the iPad or Galaxy Tab (please measure this in an imaging software, in pixels, if you don't believe us).
  3. Bezel sizes don't match between any of the three designs.
  4. Connectors and buttons on the side are different.
  5. Screen sizes and aspect ratios are different.
  6. Only the iPad has a home button.
  7. All tablets are clearly and unambiguously branded.
  8. The back color doesn't match.
Tablet comparison

Yet despite all these differences Samsung's commentary indicates that it may be concerned that Apple may be able to actually win with its broad design claims, claims which are based on similarities in shape (thin rectangles) and color scheme.  This conclusion is surprising, to me at least, but it is what it is.  

It seems a somewhat dangerous precedent to cave to Apple's broad design ownership claims, as it may become a case of "if you give them an inch, they'll want a mile."  But based on Mr. Hong's comments, Samsung indeed appears to be determined to make a bid to placate Apple on the design front, as well as the technology front.

Mr. Hong claims thas the changes in hardware and software will come with new Samsung tablets/smartphones and TouchWiz 5.0, which are set for 2012 launch(es).

We'd imagine that Samsung will have to work substantially to make its products look less iPad/iPhone-like than they already are.  That said, such efforts may pay of merits in unusual, distinctive designs like the Galaxy Nexus.

Source: Engadget

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

New lawyers
By KIAman on 10/20/2011 6:23:08 PM , Rating: 5
From everything I've been reading about Apple's and Samsung's court debacles so far, I've come to the conclusion that Samsung needs better lawyers.

RE: New lawyers
By borismkv on 10/20/2011 7:21:33 PM , Rating: 5
Apple's Lawyers were imbued with a small fraction of Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field. Facts don't affect them in any way.

RE: New lawyers
By michael2k on 10/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: New lawyers
By xytc on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: New lawyers
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 8:10:18 PM , Rating: 4
No, we need better judges.

RE: New lawyers
By Salisme on 10/20/2011 8:59:54 PM , Rating: 5
No, Samsung needs better lawyers. Samsung's lawyers could not even identify the product they were defending against an iPad. You would think, that if you are bing paid a few thousand dollars an hour you would be able to identify the key component you're defending.

You would think....

RE: New lawyers
By Samus on 10/21/2011 4:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
They [Samsung lawyers] referenced 2001: A Space Odyssey as an arguement against originality. While valid among geeks in jokingly passing conversation, thats a ridiculous professional statement.

If that doesn't raise a red flag, I don't know what else would indicate your legal defense is completely fucked.

RE: New lawyers
By Janooo on 10/21/2011 8:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
Samsung lawyers were bought by Apple.
They are called iLawyers now.

RE: New lawyers
By robinthakur on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: New lawyers
By Natch on 10/21/2011 8:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly, when a lot of people I know see a touchscreen phone or tablet, they say "there's an iPhone/iPad!"

But is that due more to Apple having such a huge presence in the market, or the fact that their product has become more of a generic name, much like Kleenex (who says "facial tissue"?), or Xerox (versus saying "copier")?? Sometimes terms do become generic, and this could be the case with the iphone/ipad.
Apple have every right to protect their revenue stream from cheap Korean/Chinese knock-offs, which is what these are .

That has yet to be proven in a court of law. A knockoff is defined as a product looking exactly the same (or so close as to be indistiguishable) as the original, without having been made by the original designer. If Samsung was putting an Apple symbol on their product, then for sure it's a knockoff. But there's no laws against similar looking products, and that's been Apple's argument.

obvious and superfluous

(from the article text) Hey, maybe that should be Apple's new slogan? Sort of like Hooters, they could make t-shirts, with the slogan on the back!
APPLE: Obvious and Superfluous ;)

RE: New lawyers
By innoc on 10/23/2011 8:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
The software of a smartphone makes free use of huge amounts of high level mathematics developped over century in many countries.

Patents are not there to reward research and development. Most advances takes place in publicly financed universities and are quickly used free of charge by the industry.

Patents are a mere tool to prevent or abet free competition. Only big firms with smart legal teams can challenge breach claims by patent owners. And at the end the price is paid by the consumer/tax payer.

I believe patenting should be prohibited. It's like free speech . If I have an idea and tell it, I can't prevent it to be repeated and improved in a cycling process.

If Mathematics had to be developped by each individual/firm starting from scratch in order not to copy ideas from others past and present, we'd probably still be at the calculus level for centuries.

hehe :)
By Pirks on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: hehe :)
By Tony Swash on 10/20/2011 6:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. One company cloning another company's product line is good for no one. Much better to have lots of different and distinct offerings competing in the market place. I thought I would never say this but as an example of how to do it look at how much Microsoft innovated with WP7. It can be done without copying if a company tries hard enough.

RE: hehe :)
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: hehe :)
By Pirks on 10/21/2011 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
Is this why Samsung lawyers couldn't distinguish them from 10 foot distance?

RE: hehe :)
By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2011 7:17:41 PM , Rating: 3
Phones aren't operated from 10 feet away, Pirks. From 10 feet away a small black rectangle is a small black rectangle.

Tell me this, if the evidence was utterly damning, why did Apple purposely submit doctored up photos where they used Photoshop to make the Samsung's look more Apple-like? I think that's a little more revealing than anecdotal stories about what Samsung's lawyers could or couldn't distinguish from unrealistic ranges. It shows dishonesty and a lack of confidence that they had a legitimate case.

RE: hehe :)
By gladiatorua on 10/20/2011 9:50:47 PM , Rating: 3
Making a product that intentionally doesn't have similarities with iCrap is not a good thing. Apple claims to own too many obvious and natural solutions. And after bullying Samsung with Galaxy stuff Apple will find another victim. It has to stop. And I hope it will soon.
Good thing is Apples trend-setting prowess started to weaken recently. And they do so very fast. Kind of like during the last decade browser wars. More and more features are implemented by community and they appear on more open platforms, where they can actually be implemented.
/me waits until karmic justice strikes Apple. Not out of hate. Just for fun. Considering Apple's track record it has to be really good.

RE: hehe :)
By name99 on 10/20/2011 11:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
And after bullying Samsung with Galaxy stuff Apple will find another victim.

Really? You are CERTAIN that Apple will just randomly sue people for the hell of it? That this suit wasn't caused by a very specific fact --- Samsung copied Apple deliberately and specifically --- and will end as soon as Samsung stops the copying?

What exactly is your evidence for this claim? Did Apple go around randomly suing people in the ten years before iPhone was introduced? Have they sued anybody over WP7?

An UNBIASED observer might look at the situation and conclude that suits were filed over a VERY SPECIFIC matter, and that as soon as nobody infringes in this specific matter, that'll be the end of it.

RE: hehe :)
By sviola on 10/21/2011 3:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that Jobs said he wanted to destroy Android.

Quick fix
By MonkeyPaw on 10/20/2011 7:09:49 PM , Rating: 4
How about they just put a sticker on the back that says "Not an iPad, you moron."

RE: Quick fix
By borismkv on 10/20/2011 7:20:25 PM , Rating: 5
Because the people who buy iPads still wouldn't get it.

RE: Quick fix
By xype on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: Quick fix
By borismkv on 10/24/2011 10:40:49 AM , Rating: 1
You realize there are two definitions for the word "Get" right? There, get as in obtain, and get as in Understand...*smack*

RE: Quick fix
By snakeInTheGrass on 10/20/2011 8:50:07 PM , Rating: 1
That's a great idea, but you'd have to get Apple to put that sticker on the back of the iPad first if you wanted to see Samsung copy/implement it.

Welcome (back) to 1985
By The Insolent One on 10/20/2011 7:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is a total replay of the PC wars.

Apple showed the masses what computers could be, but made the mistake of being overly controlling on how, when, where and especially how much they could be sold for...and the clones showed up.

Apple should have learned that once they open the door on a game changing design, the competition and their customers will kick open the door. They should have been ready to sell the iPhone at every carrier at the same time...none of this carrier exclusivity stuff.

I know they were trapped because most of the carriers were not interested in Apple's demands to get the iPhone, but this is the fallout. Maybe a little less greedy would have meant complete ownership of the market.

Whenever you massively change or create a market, you better be able to capitalize or your competitors will do it for you... and they won't even have to say thank you.

RE: Welcome (back) to 1985
By Solandri on 10/21/2011 3:07:11 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think 1982 is a better example. IBM made the PC and showed the (business) world how useful a cheap, affordable computer could be. Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS, basically copied its functionality 100%, to make the world's first PC-compatible.

IBM sued on the grounds that the BIOS was programmed to only work if you copied the words "Copyright IBM" contained within. Compaq said they reverse-engineered the product in a clean room. Basically one team disassembled the entire BIOS and wrote down everything it did when given every possible input. Another team took those specs and made their own BIOS which did the exact same thing. Right down to requiring "Copyright IBM". Compaq won, and the PC-compatible industry was born.

The people cheerleading Apple right now are basically saying things would have been better if PC-compatibles hadn't existed, and only IBM had been allowed to make PCs.

RE: Welcome (back) to 1985
By michael2k on 10/21/2011 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
No. The people cheerleading Apple right now are basically saying things would have been better if Samsung hadn't copied Apple, not that copying things correctly is wrong.

Your very example demonstrates legal copying.

I can give you a second example that demonstrates illegal copying: Psystar.
Modified OS X -> Violates copyright
Install from a server -> Violates copyright
Didn't do any reverse engineering -> Legal solution

Samsung didn't have to ape the icons, the appearance, or the UX at all. Those were choices Samsung made.

By Etern205 on 10/20/2011 6:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
If Samsung is like kissing Apple's ingrown toenails, what will happen next or the future of technology?!

By masamasa on 10/20/2011 7:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Who really cares about Apple's look and feel patents. Clearly, stolen ideas to begin with. Bunch of hypocrites is all they are.

By kleinma on 10/20/2011 8:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
My HP Touchpad has that scrolling bounce back at the end of the list feature in well. Wonder how long its been in palmOS/WebOS?

WP7 Bounceback Animation
By SenilePlatypus on 10/20/2011 8:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if Apple's "Bounceback Animation" patent is the reason Windows Phone 7 "Scrunches" the list or page when reaching the end...

By snakeInTheGrass on 10/20/2011 9:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
[This article contains mild analysis and editorial commentary. The opinions are those of the author. -Ed.]

Opinions? No, I thought this stuff was straight-up news!

One Question..
By Richlet on 10/20/2011 9:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
If another company decides to use a white chassis for their tablet, can they get sued by Apple for color infringement? Just wondering...

Stand your ground Samsung!
By thisisaname on 10/21/2011 9:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung shouldn't cave in to Apple and try to "appease" them. They are the victims of this attack. I would if I were them, fight to the bitter end, and do everything I could to drag the Apple name through the mud and not give up till this fight was one.
Apple needs to be taken off their high horse, they need to stop this frivolous lawsuits before they sue everyone to oblivion. This needs to stop!

By kitonne on 11/2/2011 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 2

Nice to see that it can be done :)

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki