SAN JOSE -- Apple released late Tuesday its best evidence that Samsung has copied its patents and trade dress, a 132-page Samsung report comparing its handsets to the iPhone.
The report methodically compares the iPhone and Samsung's S1 handset across 126 specific features. A page is dedicated to each feature with each page showing side-by-side comparisons of how the iPhone and the S1 implement the feature.
At the bottom of each page, the report makes recommendations for how Samsung could improve its handsets. The direction generally is to more closely adopt Apple's practices.
Apple sees this document from a product engineering team in Samsung's software verification group as its smoking gun. Samsung counters the document is merely observing and benchmarking best practices in the industry as one aspect of competition.
We'll let you decide by looking at some examples of the document below. We invite your comments. Is this evidence of illegal copying or normal industry benchmarking?
Would anyone like know if Apple really does have a case? Then check out this supremely sarcastic, iconoclastic, and bubble-bursting article on PC Magazine's site where they use the very unfair tactic of simply letting the actual facts of Apple's case speak for themselves. http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/300876/apple-vs-samsung-every-patent-tells-a-story What do these particular facts say? These facts reinforce the fact that, despite popular opinion and brisk sales, Apple has never innovated a single thing!In addition to not inventing the smartphone or the PMP, Apple ripped off windowing operating systems, the mouse, networked PCs, message-passing software [i.e., ObjectiveC], and the PostScript Laser printer from Xerox's PARC way back when and, recently, both OS X and iOS are mostly certified UNIX, which is in the public domain.)
Samsung is pointing out problems in their own product - Apple is merely being used as an example for contrast. if your calculator returns 1+1=3, it hardly matters whose correct calculator you use to illustrate that 1+1=2.
Apple is merely trying to compete by litigation, since they apparently can't compete by innovation.
Samsung should now sue Apple for indulging in industrial espionage. How did Apple get that internal Samsung document?
And I remain totally unconvinced. For example, I happen to know that car companies always do a meticulous study of each others' products. If that were not the case, Lexus cars wouldn't consistenly be imitating Mercedes Benz models of a generation or two ago. And yet, they add their own improvements, e.g. to enhance reliability without increasing price. And you don't see Mercedes making a big production of suing Lexus.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with Samsung buying a iPhone, and "tearing it apart," to see what to adopt and what not to adopt.
But there's a lot wrong with Apple getting their hands on internal Samsung documents, not expressly meant for public distribution.
Besides, the display in the Galaxy is bigger and wider than that of iPhones, and Apple, obviously worried about this liability, is making the iPhone 5 screen bigger and (finally) of the "correct" aspect ratio.
I would say, that's blatantly copying Samsung.
Probably Sony should sue Apple for emulating their design for iphone.
I agree that Apple has revolutionized the market with the p(r)etty phone. Other vendors have taken the concept and are rapidly developing their own designs.
Apple can't compete with Samsung in the variety and is shedding crocodile tears.
Apple is becoming a$$le.
@Bert22306, Apple got the Internal document, after the lawsuit was filed. Once a patent infringement lawsuit is filed all documents, emails, paper copies and anything taped, videos all can be accessed by lawyers for review for lawsuit case. Samsung,can ask for the same anything related to case. Lawyers ask only for things related the case and are under AND for not sharing anything that in not related to case and is confidential.
@Bert: Apple got the document through the legal discovery process both sides can use to seek internal documents including emails of the other company that support its case.
This document was released into evidence and became public record.
More to come.