
IPhone caused "crisis of design" at Samsung  - Tloewald
http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/
======
StavrosK
From what I can see, that memo isn't anything that any company wouldn't
produce internally when faced with such a strong competitor, and it doesn't
imply that they wanted to outright copy the iPhone, but good luck convincing a
judge of that...

Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of
how these things work.

~~~
podperson
It seems like the lawyer may have fucked up, or it may be some brilliant Perry
Mason-eque trap. But if the latter, why fight the memo's introduction into
evidence in the first place? So I'd guess it was a mistake.

Anyway, the memo by itself doesn't damn Samsung, but in context with, oh, the
radius of curvature of every corner of key products being changed to exactly
match Apple's devices, the color and arrangement of icons, the color and
choice of materials, and the design of packaging all matching -- it seems
pretty damning.

Yesterday we had the internal memo revealing that most returns of the Galaxy
Tab were literally caused by customers mistaking it for an iPad.

Burger King for a long time had a strategy of building new restaurants near
newly built Macdonalds because it knew how much effort its rival put into
researching locations. This seems kind of unethical, but apparently is
perfectly legal competition. Samsung builds its restaurants near Macdonalds,
copies the menu, erects a golden M over the entrance, and serves takeout in
white bags.

~~~
mcantelon
Kind of like how Apple modeled themselves after Sony. Interesting that this
sort of legal battle never happened with car manufacturers as cars from
various manufacturers tend to share fashionable design attributes.

~~~
cube13
That's because they license the hell out of their patents to each other.

------
metatronscube
The simple fact is that before the iphone, many 'smart' phones were
complicated horrible devices (badly designed from a hardware point of view)
with very poor UI/UX. Then after the iphone they were all like the iphone in
some way or another. If you ask any non-technical person out there they will
say the same. The iphone set the benchmark. So I can understand why apple
feels like folk are just ripping them off at times and riding on their coat
tails.

~~~
vibrunazo
What would be better for the users? Assuming the iPhone was better than what
came before. Which action from incumbents would be best for users?

a) Do not copy the iPhone. Make old ugly phones. (What blackberry did) Now
users are stuck with old ugly phones.

b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being
different's sake. (what windows phone did) Forces users to adapt to something
new instead of using what they're already used to.

c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about the iPhone in your
product. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. (what samsung did) Now
users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a
format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from
it.

It's obvious that option C is best for users. Might not be the best for the
original innovators. But it's the best for consumers.

Sometimes it's easy to forget that intellectual property is first and foremost
intended to protect users. Not innovators. Protecting innovators is a means to
a greater end. It's the vehicle that we found that would, in theory, lead to
greater products for users. But, unfortunately, often there's a conflict of
interest between inventors and consumers.

As an innovator, it's in my best interest that everyone in the planet must pay
their every last time to me if they ever stare at my invention, and are only
allowed to improve upon it if I allow it. But as a consumer, it's in my best
interest that inventions are shared and improved upon. So I can have the best
of both worlds.

When there's this conflict of interests. Consumers should always take
precedence. Because protecting consumers is the only good argument to back up
IP in the first place. If that's not the goal, then IP is meaningless.
Protecting inventors for protecting inventor's sake has no value. We do so
because we believe that will lead to greater products for users.

It's very common to see a confusion between these in these discussions. Even
in courts. Every time I hear "apple is being ripped off because they paid so
much money into R&D" or "artists are entitled to their music, and not you".
It's clear there's a disconnect between what IP should be and what you think
it should be. You shouldn't care whether it's protecting the inventor, you
should care whether it's protecting the user. Whenever you're in doubt, you
should ask yourself if doing something will protect or hurt the user.

And in this case. It's obvious that even tho Samsung did copy a lot from
Apple, they're also improving a lot on what existed before. What they're doing
is not in the best interest of those they're copying from. But it's in the
best interest of users. Punishing Samsung hurts consumers. That's what we
should be worried about. If samsung loses this, it sets a terrible precedent
for our industry. And it would be a great loss for consumers. Regardless of
who copied what for which reason.

~~~
raganesh
You are the founder of evolup.com. Let us say your product/service becomes a
huge success. Seeing your success, existing social games developers want to do
the same.

Which action from those existing developers would be best for users?

a) Do not copy your product/service. Continue doing things the old way.

b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being
different's sake. Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what
they're already used to.

c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about your product/service in
their offering. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. Now users have
the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format
they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it.

So where does your preferred option (c) leave you in this scenario? Would you
whole-heartedly welcome another player "embracing your innovation"?

If that happens to me, I'll lose all motivation to innovate any further. What
is the point after all?

~~~
vibrunazo
You're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. I'm actively in contact
with other local game developers trying to get them to do the same thing I'm
doing (and compete with me). I've even helped others with implementation
details. Which, I believe, will help grow the ecosystem for all of us, myself
included. Since what I'm doing is too new (arguably ahead of its time),
there's still some prejudice from both users and investors against my
technology. If others were doing it as well, that would help me. Do you wanna
copy me as too? Feel free to contact me, I'll help you. I can teach you how to
properly implement procedural generation to reduce your costs with game
artists.

At the end of the day. I trust my skills in my area. And deep inside, I'm
confident that no matter how much I'm copied, whoever copies me will always be
one step behind me. Because I'll keep on innovating one step further. The only
reason I founded a startup is because I believe I'm better than the
competition, otherwise I wouldn't have. Realistically, I believe my
competitors are much more likely to become clients to my API than to actually
try to implement it themselves.

That's just one of the many reasons humans will continue to create and
innovate, no matter how much innovation is copied.

------
programminggeek
So, a friend of mine years ago after the iPhone came out purchased a Samsung
pre-Android "smartphone". He bought it because it "looked like an iPhone" and
did smartphone things like the internet and mp3's (sort of).

He quickly realized that it was NOT an iPhone or even a very smart smartphone.

Since you don't always get to use the phones in stores, you don't always know
what you're buying. If it "looks like an iPhone" and has the same feature
list, to many people it's the same basic device, just like most people do with
appliances, cars, tv's, computers, etc.

Samsung made a lot of sales based on the fact that they looked and sold
themselves as an iPhone look/workalike device.

~~~
pkulak
If this was an argument for damages every car company would spend all its time
litigating. What exactly is the difference between a Corolla and a Fusion? Why
does every car have about the same shape? Is it because anything other than
that isn't aerodynamic and will destroy highway mileage, or is everyone
infringing on IP?

~~~
programminggeek
Well one difference is that patents only have a lifespan of what 20 years or
so? Most of the basic tech in a car that was patented in the 1900's is free to
be used and improved upon. Is new stuff patented and licensed? Yes, absolutely
it is.

Notice how Toyota partnered with Tesla motors to build an EV SUV? Or what
about how Ford licensed Toyota's hybrid technology back in 2004? Patents and
licensing.

Given that the automotive industry is much older than the computer industry,
they've likely learned the value in licensing technology where it makes sense.
Nobody would claim or confuse a Ford Fusion Hybrid with a Toyota Prius.

Also, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, etc. all by now have fairly
distinct branding and styles, so you don't see as much where the new Ford
sedan looks just like the new Chevy sedan in hopes of selling more vehicles.

Samsung seems to have made a real effort to look and sell as if they're
selling iPhones and iPads. That is why they're in trouble. Notice that Apple
didn't sue Blackberry for the the Storm or the Torch looking the same as the
iPhone.

~~~
guelo
Apple also sued HTC and Motorola. They are attacking every successful Android
manufacturer. It has nothing to do with what Samsung did specifically. Apple
first decided to sue Samsung and then the lawyers came up with the arguments.

~~~
evilduck
AFAIK, they aren't suing HTC and Motorola for infringing on their trade dress
and design patents though, only Samsung is getting that attack. And, it's not
like Apple's the only one participating in the patent lawsuit game, it's a big
web of lawsuits where they're all suing each other for something or other. We
single out Apple in this mess because they're the most headline worthy.

------
wahsd
Whether or not Samsung is going through some sort of "crisis of design", the
pernicious nature of what Apple is doing is quite underestimated. They are
trying to claim minimalism, the lack of distinction, as their own. It is the
minimalism and efficiency dilemma.

Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and
barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up
against. In fact, this effect will only concentrate even more as the physical
nature of technology and innovation disappears as things get smaller and more
concentrated.

With technology and design starting to crowd up against a barrier of physical
form-factors, it becomes increasingly apparent that patenting and copyrighting
should proportionally protect the change, the innovation, the added value; not
the absolute.

The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more
marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing
popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the
devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity.
There is nothing unique about straight lines, exact curvature, shininess,
sharp edges, and uniformity. Apple simply OCDed the shit out of their
products. I applaud their designs and their configuration of technology, but
much of it is not sufficiently unique to warrant patenting or copyrighting.

Where do you draw the line, and will Apple (or any other corporations for that
matter) be allowed to draw that line right around their interests, products,
and designs in a self-serving manner...essentially corporate gerrymandering?

Tongue-in-cheek, so no need to tell me how stupid I am, but we may as well
allow for the patent on anything that is different than what existed prior if
we are going to allow patenting and copyrighting of what is defined by hardly
more than the technological limitations. Should one be allowed to patent a
tablet that is 5 mm thick because it is thinner than a 6 mm tablet?

When you patent fundamental constraints, you might as well patent and
copyright going from point A to point B and sue everyone that doesn't go
through point C to get to point B. You are essentially trying to force
complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and
efficiency.

~~~
gavinlynch
"The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more
marginal variations on existing technology and design than not."

There are interesting points you make about IP law, but you lost me in the
above sentence which is just plain wrong. Perhaps you forget what the pre-
iPhone cellphone market was like.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Do people these days not even remember PDAs or is this willful blindness?
Apple has some claim to being early on the scene wiith hanheld computers but
not with the iPhone.

~~~
gavinlynch
Sure, but that's not what this legal case is about nor is it the point I was
arguing.

------
jfb
I would hope that the iPhone _would_ cause a crisis of design. There's nothing
dispositive about this memo, of course.

------
pooriaazimi
_Completely off-topic, but I hate seeing "IPhone..." on HN submissions._

 _Please change the title to " iPhone caused..." (i.e. add an space at the
beginning), and the stupid auto-capitalization system will be fooled._

 _see here for a submission with lowercase i at the beginning:_
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306480>

------
robomartin
How does this work in the "physical product" world (not icons on a screen).
What I am getting at is that there are stunning examples of design rip-offs in
other industries. One of my favorite examples is the blatant design rip-off of
Mitsubishi cars. They copy Mercedes Benz and BMW almost to a fault. Yet, I've
never seen a lawsuit in that world. Maybe MBZ and BWM simply choose to
continue innovating and move on. I don't know. I think I've seen this from Kia
as well. They always seem to target MBZ and BMW.

------
kenster07
Of course the iPhone influenced Samsung's designs, as well as every other
smartphone's design. The iPhone was in turn influenced by the designs of
products which preceded it, for which Apple can take absolutely no credit.
Such things should not be patentable.

