
Samsung reveals its pre-iPhone concepts: 10 touchscreen devices - koide
http://www.osnews.com/story/26230/Samsung_reveals_its_pre-iPhone_concepts_10_touchscreen
======
eta_carinae
Pretty damning:

> One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a
> product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew
> once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the
> iPhone

The more this thing goes on, the more it feels like Apple is filing all the
possible lawsuits they can more in order to slow down their competitors than
because they have valid claims.

I miss the days when they did not need to do this because their products were
simply better than the competition.

~~~
sien
Apple spent years suing MS in the 1980s and 1990s because of claims that MS
used ideas from Apple, rather than Xerox, in creating a windowed shell for an
OS.

So the days when Apple thought they didn't need to do this were the days of
the Apple II.

~~~
rbanffy
The Xerox GUI (as implemented in the Star) had no concept of drag and drop or
pull down menus. It didn't expose much of a file system (as Lisa and Mac do).

Apple added all that and Windows 1, after the Lisa was launched, opted to also
have them. So, yes. Both Apple and Microsoft borrowed a lot from Xerox, but
Microsoft really copied a lot from what Apple did.

~~~
zik
Xerox had the first "fixed drop-down menu".
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface)

Apple's Jef Raskin did come up with drag-and-drop though so that's pretty much
the one original thing they did.

~~~
masklinn
> so that's pretty much the one original thing they did.

The Star didn't have overlapping windows either I believe (Atkinson believed
it did, so he implemented it). I think the clipboard was invented for Lisa as
well.

~~~
rbanffy
There is more detail here:

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&topic=Software%20Design&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date)

------
Terretta
It's interesting that Samsung's before and after poster has all the screens
turned off, allowing black on black designs to look edge to edge, and
dismissing the look of the backlit UI, suggesting similarities far greater
than they were at the time.

The argument isn't about the devices on that poster. It's about Samsung's _a
posteriori_ "design" and marketing process. Their product guy's "can't design
patent a black rectangle" comments are a bit disingenuous:

[http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/wp-
content/uploads/20...](http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/Samsung-Android-phone-copies-Apple-iPhone.jpg)

Also worth noting their tablet PR screenshots, like their boxes, have stopped
using the iPad's portrait icon array and started featuring landscape TouchWiz
widgets instead.

They were fully aware of what they were doing:

Boxes before: [http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galax...](http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png)

Boxes after:
[http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9172/width...](http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9172/width/350/height/700)

~~~
incision
So what?

When I go to a clothing store, all the jeans and dress shirts and folded the
same way and look nearly identical, same goes for the milk and eggs at the
grocery store.

In spite of all this I always manage to come home with the brand I set out to
buy in the first place.

~~~
Terretta
> _In spite of all this I always manage to come home with the brand I set out
> to buy in the first place._

Jeans are somewhat less complex. There are fewer ways to differentiate, so
those differentiators become more signficant. And the makers try to
differentiate across as many of them as they can.

Meanwhile, Samsung's own market feedback shows customers were coming home with
the wrong box:

[http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-
bu...](http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/)

EDIT (ADDED): If you think this is "customer stupidity", you haven't been
paying much attention to normals' interactions with technology, or to
Samsung's deliberate packaging and presentation.

See the "What did you do with my Facebook?" incident:

[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_inter...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_internet_meme.php)

Recapped here, "These are your users, read and be horrified":

[http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-
be-h...](http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-horrified)

~~~
smokeyj
That's like when I go shopping for toy guns, and accidentally buy a real
bazooka. Whoops!

~~~
tsahyt
You end up with a much more powerful product? ;)

~~~
Xylakant
But it's single shot only and differs in handling qualities.

------
Tloewald
"The 'invention' of the GUI was a very long process, which, in my view,
started with Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad (1st generation GUI), and ended with
the work done at Xerox (3rd generation GUI)."

The article loses credibility when it suggests that the invention of the GUI
stops at Xerox, when Apple invented (among many other things) drag and drop,
overlapping windows, a practical mouse (that could track diagonally, didn't
break down, and did more with one button than xerox did with three).

But what would I know?

"The Macintosh was the first computer worth criticizing." Alan Kay

I'm totally on board with apple not owning rounded rectangles, but Samsung's
copying of Apple has extended to literally using Apple's UI graphics in store
displays.

~~~
ajross
> Samsung's copying of Apple has extended to literally using Apple's UI
> graphics in store displays

This is new to me, cite? Obviously doing that would amount to cut and dry
copyright violation, and Apple would be well within its rights to demand the
in-store displays be removed.

But this isn't a spit about clip art. They're claiming ownership of an
increasingly nebulous idea of a "tablet" (it seems it's no longer just about
the narrow design patent, or about the size, or aspect ratio, or curved
corners). That's a different thing, and not at all related to what you're
talking about.

~~~
spiralpolitik
[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/)

Last I checked the App Store and Safari were not available on Android. In
fairness its a store within a store so the Samsung might not have been
directly responsible.

------
DigitalSea
Wow, I think it's time to open up another bag of popcorn this movie just got
even more interesting. Although I am not an Apple fanboy by any means, I was
starting to believe for a moment that Samsung were going to lose this and then
bam, they release images of concept phones including one with a very iOS like
interface before the iPhone was even released.

I think this situation goes to show that Apple aren't as revolutionary as they
lead on or people think. Steve was a great sales man, but certainly not a
visionary. Nothing about the iPhone appears to be revolutionary any more,
considering Samsung amongst others were working on the same idea, it's
evolutionary not revolutionary.

It will be interesting to see where this leads, could Apple lose some of their
iPhone patents because of all of this? This of course doesn't change the fact
Samsung copied Apple's charger design and accessory packaging, but ripped off
the iPhone? Nah.

------
j45
LG KE850 also had an phone that predated the iphone with a similar design

[http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-
ke850-separ...](http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-
ke850-separated-at-birth/)

------
CWIZO
Can somebody enlighten me about something. Samsung manufactures a lot (a lot)
of Apple's hardware (not just the iPhone). So the way I see it they are both
dependent on each other quite a lot. OK so my question is: why are they doing
this "dick measuring contest"?!

~~~
ralfn
Because Jobs has a fragile ego, like a little child, and wanted to get back at
Google. And its all in motion now.

The rest of them are just dragged into this war. But they will fight. They
will do bussiness. They are profit chasers off course.

Apple on the other hand, their legal strategy is not rational. They picked a
fight they couldnt win, they shouldnt win, and even if they would, we would
change the rules on them; because in the end we all want some choices when
buying products.

Does anyone truly expect Apple to launch a full scale legal war against of all
its competitors, and not get burned in the proccess?

I honestly dont care. From Samsung to Google, to Microsoft. There are no
saints. But these days im rooting for Apple downfall. Just because i get so
tired of all the Apple apologists.

I know they are victims, but at a certain point the whole Stockholm syndrome
gets kind of old.

------
aidenn0
IANAL, but doesn't prior-art have to be _published_ to count?

~~~
vidarh
This is not to prove prior art, contrary to what the headline implies

The purpose of this is to establish that Samsung did not wilfully infringe
even if Apple's patents are valid (they will argue they were just in good
faith continuing to evolve designs they already had that were similar), but
that Apple's patents are invalid because they are dictated by function - it is
logical for touch screen phones to get a large screen and reduce number of
buttons, for example - and because the design elements were obvious (arguing
that the existence of a wide range of similar designs, even if not published,
shows that no knowledge of the iPhone was necessary for someone with ordinary
knowledge of the arts to come up with something similar).

Samsung has previously argued prior art previously in the form of prototype /
design studies for tablets by Knight-Ridder.

~~~
ktsmith
Samsung can also point to the LG Prada which was publicly announced three
weeks before the iPhone and on sale months before the iPhone.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada>

~~~
taligent
Firstly, it isn't about prior art so not sure why you are bringing up an LG
device. Secondly, nobody is going to mistake an iPhone for an LG Prada.
Nobody. But a lot of people are going to mistake an iPhone and a Samsung
Galaxy S.

~~~
incision
>But a lot of people are going to mistake an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy S.

As I've said before (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4244317>).

Apple can't demonstrate 10, let alone any meaningful number of people who
accidentally bought a Galaxy when they meant to pick up an iPad/iPhone.

It doesn't happen.

~~~
taligent
Apple has evidence from Samsung that plenty of people accidentally purchased
(and then returned) the Galaxy Tab thinking it was the iPad. So no reason the
same wouldn't happen for the Galaxy S.

So yes. It does happen.

~~~
taligent
Evidence:

[http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-
samsung-...](http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-give-
reporters-plenty-to-chew-on/)

~~~
ktsmith
Without some numbers behind those statements they are pretty meaningless.
People buy the wrong product all the time and take it back. This is especially
true of those people that don't understand what it is they are buying in the
first place.

------
davemak
Does anyone know if these 10 touchscreen concept devices use resistive touch
screens that require a stylus?

------
cooldeal
Everyone seems to be getting confused about patents vs. design patents here.
Can anyone explain whether design patents are at play here(the rounded corner
one for the iPad from 2004) and how prior art affects design patents? Also,
what if the prior art was in secret prototypes?

------
cobolorum
Sure... but the Newton came before that with the interface design and much of
the device design itself. In such case, Samsung and many others stole their
ideas from the Newton and Apple wins anyway.

~~~
mtgx
Newton patents must've expired by now. Also, if it's indeed the case that they
look like the Newton, then Newton is the prior art and the patent on it has
expired. This would also invalidate Apple's "new" design patents.

------
andy_herbert
The Samsung F700 sure looks like an iPhone, at a distance, until you try to
type on the thing and realise it has a pull-out hardware keyboard. How did
that work out for successive designs?

It makes you wonder if Apple really was copying off Samsung, as this article
suggests, then why was no single Samsung model was as least as successful as
the iPhone in the same time frame?

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
This is a huge strawman... No where is it claimed by anyone that Apple copied
Samsung. The only thing that's obvious from this picture, and it is obvious,
is that rectangles with rounded borders and a look a feel that's dominated by
a huge screen with no ornaments is an obvious idea that Apple should not have
monopoly over.

~~~
andy_herbert
> No where is it claimed by anyone that Apple copied Samsung

Except in the PDF linked in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

