
Steve Jobs contacted Samsung in 2010 to resolve Apple patent dispute - ashishgandhi
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/steve-jobs-pushed-talks-with-samsung-to-address-patent-dispute.html?cmpid=yhoo
======
tyler_ball
Samsung's products are so aesthetically similar that their own marketing
people get confused and just use Apple assets.

Based on everything I've heard about Jobs' "negotiation" style, I'm sure the
phone call was completely civil. No yelling whatsoever.

[http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/09/24/who-copies-who-
samsun...](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/09/24/who-copies-who-samsung-
store-display-re-uses-apple-icons/)

~~~
alttag
I think a fuller outline of some of the copying (pictures worth 1,000 words)
was linked by Gruber: <http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a>

~~~
NickPollard
The icon one there is the only one I'd take issue with. Possibly the non-usb
connector as well.

The others are a matter of form following function. Apple don't have a
trademark on USB or mains plugs. Apple don't have a trademark on white,
rectangular boxes. Apple don't have a trademark on putting the damn product in
the damn box (seriously? This is considered copying?) Apple don't have a
trademark on showing a picture of a microphone when in a voice recording app.

~~~
siglesias
>> putting the damn product in the damn box (seriously? This is considered
copying?)

There is a considerable amount of thought that goes into how a product is
packaged an unpackaged. It is extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that all
that is being copied here is "putting the damn product in the damn box." I can
think of approximately 20-30 ways that a tablet can be packaged (and surely
you've opened just as many products in your life time), and a five-sided cover
revealing just the product is only one of them.

It's a common theme emerging on HN that these trademark disputes constitute
"obvious" design choices. It bears mentioning that it is possible to verify
the solution of an NP problem in P time. That doesn't make the solution
obvious.

~~~
nobleach
Yes I can imagine the decision conversation going something like this:

Number 1: Sir, we just received word, Apple put their product in the box FACE
UP!

CEO: CRAP! Back to the drawing board. Note all staff, "product face up" has
been done. It's tired, it's old. Yesterday's news.... now we have to try
something totally different.

(sorry for the trolling, couldn't resist the sarcastic approach. Yes it does
look like Samsung totally did a workalike on this one.)

~~~
ashishgandhi
I know you were trying to be sarcastic but I'm sorry if you cannot think of
other ways to pack a cell phone. Maybe Samsung is run by people just like
these.

A quick Google Images search displays quite a few ways it is actually being
done.

[http://www.google.com/search?q=phone+packaging&hl=en&...](http://www.google.com/search?q=phone+packaging&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gMmETtPwDoiJrAeU1LzSDA&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=614)

------
smackfu
“We wanted to give them a chance to do the right thing.”

Like pay them a lot of money or change their designs? It's not like Apple
reaching out would make Samsung say "great, awesome!"

~~~
chicagobob
Well, ok, but you need to consider that Apple is actually winning most of the
cases where it has accused Samsung of copying it. It has gotten injunctions.
This is clearly a case of a company (Samsung) not thinking though the
consequences of its actions. Although lots of companies copy stuff all the
time, Samsung has done a really thorough job of copying the iPad this time
around.

------
acg
I find this unsurprising, companies don't resort to court before having a
conversation. Even if the conversation is I think you should pay us licensing.
The court actions are born out of disagreement.

------
jsnk
Patents themselves have only partial importance in the dispute. Mild form of
patent violations do occur in the industry, but they are set aside most of
them times, because most companies have violated some form of patents one way
or the other. They want to avoid this type of battle Apple and Samsung are
engaged in.

The real motive on the both sides is to reduce the sales of the opponents. I
think both Apple and Samsung thinks that 2011 and 2012 are critical years that
would determine the mobile phone trend in next few years to come. So despite
the huge pain both parties go through, they may think that it's all worth it.

~~~
Steko
"The real motive on the both sides is to reduce the sales of the opponents."

Only so much as they want to increase their own sales. Samsung is looking for
validation that their close copying is not illegal so they can continue doing
so and reaping the benefits. Apple is looking to force Samsung to
differentiate their products more through court order or public shaming.

~~~
jsnk
I don't agree with the claim that only Samsung is the one copying in this
dispute. There is definitely traits of derivative designs from Samsung. So for
laymen like us, it would appear that Samsung is on the wrong, but there may be
a whole host of actual hardware infringements Apple might actually be engaged.
No one other than selective few in the industry will know how much copying and
infringement of patents have been going on. But if you were to ask me, both
sides are probably both guilty.

~~~
Steko
Apple apparently infringed on Nokia's IP which is why they wrote Nokia a
multi-billion dollar check plus future royalties.

People love to paint Apple as the big bad patent bully but they have paid more
in patent settlements then all these other companies put together. Apparently
they're allowed to violate but Android gets a free pass because, you know,
"open".

~~~
vogonj
this is Google's actual legal reasoning as to why they shouldn't be held
liable for contributory patent infringement in Oracle v. Google:

"[S]ection 271(c) applies only to offers for sale, sales, and importation, but
Google does not sell, offer to sell, or import Android or Android SDK. [...]
The ordinary meaning of 'sale' requires transfer of ownership for a price.
[...] Android and Android SDK are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes
to download them off the Internet, however, and there is no evidence that
Google ever receives any consideration in return. That undisputed fact
precludes a finding of contributory infringement."

[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-
upda...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-update-
summary-judgment.html)

~~~
nitrogen
That is just one element of a many-faceted approach to defending Android. It
is misleading to suggest that making the observation that Google does not sell
Android is equivalent to admitting that there is no better argument available.
AFAIK (IANAL), you aren't usually allowed to raise new arguments later on in a
trial (which bothers me), so both sides will raise every issue and argument
they can think of at the beginning.

