Did the Apple vs. Samsung Jury Fail to Properly Do Their Job?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What this particular biased source fails to show is the fact that Samsung was working with more than one model of phones.

While definitely a good rejoinder that graphic is slightly let down by the fact that it doesn't include the original Galaxy S which is the one closest to the iPhone in look, and the cause of most of the fuss.

Silly really, because including it wouldn't really have reduced the impact of the graphic.

Graham

[tubemonkey]

I have a Samsung flip phone and people are always asking me if it's an Apple flip phone

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Is that all it takes not to infringe? Copy everything someone do and just change the word on the front?

seems unfair.

Seems ridiculous to hint that people bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone, but that's apple's premise.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Is that all it takes not to infringe? Copy everything someone do and just change the word on the front?

seems unfair.

Except they didn't copy everything that Apple did. They copied some of the things that Apple did. And have improved upon others.

If we narrow it down to the Galaxy S range, they've been adjudged to have copied the rounded rectangular look and the silver trim, but not the shape of the speaker grille or the buttons, and they copied some of the icons, the bounce back effect and the way you interact to zoom with the device.

The big Samsung letters on the front, the different number of buttons, the different size and aspect ratio, and the different operating system don't seem to count.

Yes, Samsung deliberately moved this range a little too close to Apple's look for Google's comfort, but $1 billion in lost profit for Apple? Hmm.

Graham

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Graham

But would you go into a shop wanting an iPhone and accidentally buy a Samsung? And then not realise and not take it back? Bear in mind that the packaging has Samsung in big letters, and no mention of Apple or iPhone. I find it hard to believe that anyone wanting an iPhone wouldn't know it was made by Apple.


Graham

I would go into a shop and ask the sales associate which phone suits my needs. He or she would direct me to one. I would have to look for the logo to see who made it. They all look similar to me just glancing down the aisle of smartphones. (Or at the BBC article)

I was agreeing with the Apple employee when he said, "Customers can get confused on whose product is whose."

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

Seems ridiculous to hint that people bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone, but that's apple's premise.

Ok, I agree. But now, please, answer my question.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I was agreeing with the Apple employee when he said, "Customers can get confused on whose product is whose."

That is just the kind of clueless customer that is Apple's bread and butter, so they sure do not want them confused.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Ok, I agree. But now, please, answer my question.

Infringe what? It is just a basic shape that has been used for many PDA and other tech objects for years. The label indicates the manufacturer, so that should be clear enough for anyone with a clue.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, Samsung deliberately moved this range a little too close to Apple's look for Google's comfort, but $1 billion in lost profit for Apple? Hmm.

The argument is that if Samsung's product hadn't looked 'like' an iPhone, many people wouldn't have considered it, and would simply have bought the iPhone. Most people knew they were buying a Samsung product but thought it was 'like' an iPhone, only cheaper.

To be honest, I know quite a few people who bought products that were 'like' iPhones or 'like' MacBooks. Copying the design was an important part of demonstrating similarity.

[obsessed2]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I would go into a shop and ask the sales associate which phone suits my needs. He or she would direct me to one. I would have to look for the logo to see who made it. They all look similar to me just glancing down the aisle of smartphones. (Or at the BBC article)

I was agreeing with the Apple employee when he said, "Customers can get confused on whose product is whose."

If I glance down the aisles of a car lot the rows and rows of cars pretty much look the same. This point was made in a USA Today story: Aerodynamics tend to breed similarity in body shapes, and there are just so many component manufacturers out there.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UD-uOiL7h3o



So other companies want to make sleek looking phones, but Apple thinks they own the rights to how a phone should look? I read the other day HTC is now in the sights of Apple's ridiculous patent gun.

This is what Apple would like every other competitor's phone to look like:

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

So other companies want to make sleek looking phones, but Apple thinks they own the rights to how a phone should look

I agree that this verdict is ridiculous, but all the companies thought they were making sleek looking phones before Apple, and had no intention of making ones that looked like the iPhone until after its release. They did copy Apple, purposely and with intent to gain from Apple's improved design.

Claiming it's worth 1 billion though is devastating to the overall market.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Infringe what?

Can shop owner copy someone elses design of a stunning one of a kind evening gown, put his own label on the inside and say 'it's my own design! the label is different!' ?

Or a watch?

I would call it unfair, even if it's legal. Same thing with phone exteriors past a generic point.

[obsessed2]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

Most people knew they were buying a Samsung product but thought it was 'like' an iPhone, only cheaper.

To be honest, I know quite a few people who bought products that were 'like' iPhones or 'like' MacBooks. Copying the design was an important part of demonstrating similarity.

Samsung products are not necessarily cheaper than Apple's. In fact, the Galaxy SIII is actually priced higher than the iPhone 4S. Anyone willing to spend an equal or greater amount of money on either product obviously did their homework before hand and based their purchasing decision on reviews and research.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

Samsung products are not necessarily cheaper than Apple's. In fact, the Galaxy SIII is actually priced higher than the iPhone 4S. Anyone willing to spend an equal or greater amount of money on either product obviously did their homework before hand and based their purchasing decision on reviews and research.

That's true of the Galaxy SIII. It's not true for the infringing products in the lawsuit. The Galaxy SIII is a premium phone in its own right, with people very willingly choosing it.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Can shop owner copy someone elses design of a stunning one of a kind evening gown, put his own label on the inside and say 'it's my own design! the label is different!' ?

Or a watch?

I would call it unfair, even if it's legal. Same thing with phone exteriors past a generic point.

What's your issue? A Samsung phone is not an iPhone with a different logo on the front. Different size, different aspect radio, different buttons, different speaker grill, ... Not to mention all the different internals.

If somebody confuses a Samsung with the iphone, then they're either an apple "genius" or have less than 2 firing neuron cells.