

Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis - castway
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

======
kenjackson
Here's the LG Prada:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_picture.jpg)

[http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-
ke850-touchable...](http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-
ke850-touchable-chocolate/)

Announced Dec 2006. I'm not saying Samsung copied this phone, but if I was LG,
I'd start to wonder.

BTW, best article on the issue to date.

~~~
halo
To be fair, the iPhone looks uncannily like the LG Prada. LG accused Apple of
copying their design when they announced the iPhone.

The Samsung Galaxy S bears more than a passing resemblence to the LG Chocolate
KG800 (<http://www.muamat.com/adpics/4b98d2cc2ac18ee7579fe7516.jpg>) from
2006.

Edit: Samsung announced the F700 in Febrary 2007, which is very similar to the
Galaxy S in design
([http://www.mobilephoneonly.co.uk/phonereviews/upload/samsung...](http://www.mobilephoneonly.co.uk/phonereviews/upload/samsung_f700_425.jpg)).

------
ddlatham
_You’re probably familiar with patents, copyrights, and trademarks, the three
main types of intellectual property. Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-
cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of
it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition.
(That’s a vastly simplified explanation, but it’s good enough for our
purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are all about protecting consumers from
being deceived in the marketplace — the idea is to clearly indicate the source
of a product or service._

It's very interesting that in trademark and trade dress the issue is whether a
product confuses consumers, rather than whether ideas were copied. Does this
mean, with respect to these claims, that it's fine to copy product ideas and
designs, so long as the product is clearly from a different source and
consumers would not confuse it with the original source?

(For patents and copyright claims, it's more clear that it's about the
duplication rather than the confusion it may cause.)

~~~
roc
Only utility patents protect ideas. No other intellectual property does. It's
unfortunate that there aren't stronger penalties for rights-holders who make
claims wildly beyond the scope of the licenses they're granted. They cause a
lot of confusion and unnecessary animosity toward what are very pro-consumer
concepts [1].

[1] Conceptually and originally at least.

------
ChuckMcM
I really enjoyed the discussion about "Trade Dress" as protected IP, that was
something I had vague notions about and now have less vague notions about (the
story about _how_ the Coke bottle shape is protected was new to me)

I also find it somewhat amusing to compare the 'Apple in the dead pool' under
Scully vs the current Apple. Few companies have made such epic reversals in
their fortunes.

------
patrickaljord
Interesting post from reddit about trade dress <http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg>
from
[http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/gtg5i/apple_vs_sams...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/gtg5i/apple_vs_samsung/)

~~~
cube13
The image is wrong. According to a post in the reddit thread, as well as
Samsung's own website, Samsung unveiled that phone in February 2007, one month
after Apple showed the iPhone.

Looking at Samsung's photos, I do not see how it's possible for anyone to say
that Apple was copying them. Samsung probably can make a case on the home
screen format(4 icons, bottom row, etc.), but the overall design is quite
different. The F700 has a physical keyboard.

<http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=3516>

------
brudgers
" _> In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future
Power_"

Neither was $172 billion company with a history of manufacturing handheld
touchscreen devices dating back to 1989 and a huge portfolio of touch screen
devices since then. [see image of early Gridpad here:
[http://ashishtiwari.posterous.com/guifx-touchscreens-that-
ch...](http://ashishtiwari.posterous.com/guifx-touchscreens-that-changed-the-
world) ]

------
kedi_xed
How does this compare to another field, say cars? I recently been car shopping
for the first time, and the similarities between sedan models is amazing. Due
to the nature of a car, and a sedan at that, it seems that all models have to
follow a similar design for them to be functional and acceptable.

If a trade dress results in the monopoly of an industry, I assume then that
the it would have to be avoided, or everyone pays Apple a small fee for use of
the shape.

The issue as well is that many phones are all the same shape - rectangular,
and many had rounded corners before Apple. Nokia have been using a XxX grid of
icons for years before Apple. So essentially Apple is trying to trademark all
of these elements put together as a trade dress issue.

But then Apple did take the time to invest and research the iPhone so they
should take some of the benefits, but why sue so late?

~~~
chalst
There are two tests a trade dress lawsuit has to meet: first, the features
have to be distinctive of the product in the eye of the consumer; second, the
features must not be functional. This second requirement should mean that
trade dress cannot be used to establish a monopoly.

The actual application of the functionality requirement is hazy. See
<http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/549.pdf>

It's unclear to me that Apple's claims to trade dress pass the functionality
requirement.

------
rodh257
Sounds like Samsung are going to have a tough job defending this. I imported a
Galaxy S to Australia before they were release here and I had many people
asking me if it was an iPhone, or just assuming I had an iPhone when they saw
it. That's changed a bit now as they have been heavily marketed by all the
phone carriers so more people know what they are.

Of course, if you inspect it closer, you'll notice the device is thinner, and
the screen is larger and has more vibrant colours (particularly compared to
the 3gs that it looks like), but on a quick glance you'd think it could be an
iPhone.

------
orionlogic
One can stretch this issue as far as it can.
<http://cl.ly/1M2s1H1r3o2f2K1b2037>

However i should correct the date till 350 B.C.

------
nl
As an otherwise very happy Samsung Galaxy S user, personally I wish it looked
a lot less like an iPhone.

------
metageek
I love this bit: "It sounds simple, but, well, that’s only because we’re
simplifying it.".

------
hesdeadjim
This has to make things a little awkward considering Samsung has been fabbing
Apple's mobile chips.

~~~
kenjackson
And displays and Flash. I recall at one point Samsung made 40% of the world's
Flash memory.

~~~
goatforce5
I'd have to assume that Apple was really comfortable with the terms of their
component supply contracts with Samsung, and that Samsung can't find a way to
get out of them at this point.

~~~
cooldeal
Why would Samsung want to get out of the contracts when they're making
billions off them?

~~~
kenjackson
Because it could cost them even more. Apple is problematic for Samsung for two
reasons: (1) This lawsuit and (2) Apple selling product that Samsung makes
much higher margins on than displays and fabbing.

Samsung ends up being in a MUCH better place if Apple becomes a niche player
and Android and/or Windows Phone become the dominant platforms.

If Samsung was able to get out of all contracts to Apple it could probably
stall Apple's growth a bit. Not an enormous hit, but enough to help Android
get some tablet strength and WP7 to get Mango out the door.

Given that Samsung is the premiere vendor of non-Apple phones and tablets, and
given this market is much more lucrative than components, they may be willing
to give up 4% of revenue in a powerplay.

With that said they probably have contracts through 2011. Although if they
were late on delivering the product, they could probably deal with the
penalties, since they're probably small in comparison.

~~~
iamdave
Samsung IS Apple in South Korea, and for what it's worth, an event like this
is not by an stretch of the imagination going to hurt them. Especially when
you consider Samsung has a lot more going for it than home appliances and
electronics in the United States.

That tower in Dubai? Guess who built it.

