Samsung attorney says Apple doesn't own sexy
The response from Korean based Samsung went right to the heart of the matter. Holding up a Samsung Galaxy Tab, Samsung's attorney asked, "Apple doesn't own a patent on a product being beautiful or sexy. Isn't that correct? Apple doesn't own the right to preclude the design of this hardware?" Schiller's response was to look at the Galaxy Tab and state that it looks just like the Apple iPad, which didn't really address the issue.
Bill Price, one of Samsung's attorneys, also tried to show how tech companies copy each others' successful designs. During the re-trial, Price revealed an email between Apple executives that said that Apple should go forward with a 7 inch iPad on the strength of a newspaper article that praised the 7 inch Samsung Galaxy Tab. Schiller denied that the iPad mini was anything else but the result of Apple engineers experimenting with a smaller screened version of its tablet.
Actually, none of this testimony is important because the question at this re-trial isn't whether Samsung is liable or not liable. The Samsung devices involved already were found by a jury to have infringed on Apple's patents. The question is one of damages. Apple says Samsung should pay it $380 million and Samsung feels it should be required to cut a check for no more than $52 million.
9. Damitel (Posts: 65; Member since: 21 Apr 2013)
All I can say is all these tech companies copy each other. None is a saint, Apple making themselves one is laughable, unforgivable and totally self mocking.
15. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Especially with a comment like this.
"Schiller denied that the iPad mini was anything else but the result of Apple engineers experimenting with a smaller screened version of its tablet."
My god, how stupid do you have to be to make a comment like this. Yes, I'm sure that apple would have created a "7.85 inch" device if others hadn't been successful with it.
35. ibap (Posts: 681; Member since: 09 Sep 2009)
And Jobs said you couldn't make a good tablet with a screen smaller than the original iPad.
50. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
I'll tell what what is a really stupid comment. People think they know Apple.
The company is so secretive, they could have been working on the iPad Mini for years. Apple claimed they worked on the iPad Air for years.
The same is true for the iPad, which Apple worked on FIRST before spending over 2 years to build the iPhone.
The truth is Apple could have been working on features for their devices YEARS before android.
60. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Don't be naive. Or intentionally dense. I guess Steve never said this?
Yeah, I'm sure he said that because they were secretly working on a 7 in tablet for 2-10 years before it was ever produced. That makes all the logical sense in the world. Grow up.
68. cnpthe3rd (Posts: 48; Member since: 01 Feb 2009)
well actually if you listen he said "the 7 inch tablet is simple too small to offer great tablet apps" so it is clear that apple was secretly working on a 7 inch tablet that runs crappy apps
53. rodneyej1 (Posts: 3197; Member since: 06 Jul 2013)
I don't like Android,, I like Windows Phone.
61. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
DJ is reasonable with his Fanaticism, but ardent and mxy are just dumb.
69. darkkjedii (Posts: 10048; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Dude I own a few high end devices, iOS and android. That's it and that's all.
2. longshot201 (Posts: 1; Member since: 04 Oct 2013)
Silly Samsung. If your case is about owning sexy, then go after Justin Timberlake. HE BROUGHT SEXY BACK.
40. Tsoliades (Posts: 204; Member since: 22 Dec 2012)
lol GHEY huehuehuehue
Are we 12 years old here?
48. mattkl (Posts: 166; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
Odd place to come out and announce this type of thing jacko1977. Congrats though, you go boy, let everyone know! +1
52. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
jacko1977, your comment would be considered "homophobic" in today's environment. And you clearly have lots of supporters of like minds. It not racist per se, but it is a bigoted comment.
6. emadshiny (Posts: 1127; Member since: 05 Dec 2012)
"Im sexy and i know it", says apple
"Im fuggly but my lovers wont accept", says Sammy.
37. Finalflash (Posts: 1406; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
So ones a pompous douche (Apple) and the other is loved for substance (Samsung), I guess thats realistic.
65. Pancholo (Posts: 371; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
Suddenly reminded me of high school romance logic, but everybody would be loving the pompous douche instead.
8. Slammer (Posts: 920; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
Under all this sexy gibberish, lies the fact that there are only a few ways to build a tablet that remains a tablet. Apple should have been sued for copying a laptop design then. All laptops look the same because it is a laptop. You can't expect to make a successful product without some mimicking. Name another way to make a round tire.
38. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Exactly. So everyone else is supposed to use diamond, hexagon corners?
54. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
That is a dumb comment.
1. It's not that the tire is round, but a circle is round and thus came the "round" wheel.
2. If you think there's only a few ways to make tablet, then we ALL would have been stuck with the MicroSoft resistive, stylus-orient tablet.
3. And, if you think there's only a few ways to make a smartphone, without the iPhone leading the way, you wouldn't have android in its form today.
4. I don't know what laptops you've used, but the laptop today look nothing like the laptops from 5 years ago. I can tell you today's ultrabooks look a lot like the MacBook Air introduced in 2008.
Slammer, the next time you use a smartphone or tablet, be appreciative someone or some company challenged the status quo.
PS - lastly, it's not just round tire, it's all the innovations applied to the tire since it first came out. And guess what, companies are still making innovations to a round tire. As with your last comments about battery technology, you tend to be too pedantic and narrow-minded.
66. Pancholo (Posts: 371; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
Cool story, bro. I don't see people liking your statements. Whether we like it or not, the majority (generally) always wins, so have fun in your corner while everybody else is not being "unique and selfless" like you.
73. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Ardent, I leave the site for a year and I see your just as uselessly rude as always. Grow up man.
There are only so many tablet designs that will SELL.
The smartphone would still exist. The iphone did not invent capacitive touch screens, gestures, or any of that. Apple borrowed HEAVILY from everyone else and just repackaged it in a new way.
Laptop still look exactly like laptops from 5 years ago, only thinner. But guess what, those laptops were thinner than the ones from 5 years before that. Its called EVOLUTION of design. Parts get smaller so the packaging gets smaller.
You think Apple forced Intel to make everything smaller? lol. They just made a very simple machine and made it thin by taking advantage of EVERYONE ELSES HARD WORK in the field, repackaging it, and selling it at a ridiculous premium. Inside every "Air" is a stripped down bargain PC in a fancy package.
Your confusing innovation with redesign. Unless they made a brand new style of packaging for those devices (they didnt), it is nothing more than standing on the shoulders of giants, making what they did prettier, and then lots of creative advertising to brainwash idiots into thinking they invented something.
OH hay, it looks like it worked.
82. willard12 (Posts: 678; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Remixfa comes out of retirement wearing #45. Ardent is in denial. In his mind, apple has never adopted anything and is completely original. Slide to unlock, notifications, toggles are all apple inventions. Steve Jobs was simply "misquoted" with great artists steal comment.
77. techaman (unregistered)
you don't know much about technology or design do you all laptops of luck the same for last 5 to 6 years just smaller packaging new technologies for android phones don't look like apple phones because android came out a little bit after it but was designed to run on top of anythingapple started taking part from android to make a new ios 6 7 in anything else to come out with some gas seen next year when the release a larger screen and a few more things from android phones it will be your brand new because that out lol apple people think my coworker just switched from apple to the galaxy note 3 last week and loves it so much is already changed your mind off to other hardcore apple fans nab also switched want people realise that there is more to a phone in a little tiny screen the switch and never look back
80. Slammer (Posts: 920; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
My comment only appears dumb because you haven't fully understood my point. The above article is based on aesthetics. A product design reminiscent seen for many years elsewhere. If you feel you can engineer a consumer preferred, ergonomically designed usable tablet that doesn't represent a tablet, I'm all ears.
Tires are a great example because from far away they all look the same. Only when viewed up close, do we see the characteristics in details. Laptops are the same. From a distance, they all have a clamshell design that is hard to distinguish with the exception of those that have emblems that light up on the back of the screen. If not for this feature, you would be hard pressed to see a difference from a distance.
On the battery issue: I simply don't care what feel about my thought on it. When it comes to the point where I'm not replacing 40 year old technology designed batteries in modern day electronic products almost everyday of my 32 years as a service technician, I will then change my postion on sealing batteries inside a device. Many engineers around the globe are also in agreement. Batteries fail far more than you think. The truth is, many operation issues are attributed to battery failures other than just not holding a charge. Most people don't know this and that is what companies are banking on. You're failing to realize that I'm speaking to protect the consumer from expensive, unnecessary trips to the service center. Apple has successfully implemented the practice that service issues must default to an Apple store for repair. Because of the tremendous profit off of the consumers for this, the rest of the industry wants to follow suit. I don't know many people that want to pay companies for every little thing. Especially a battery issue that insurance companies generally don't recognize. It's an expendable component. Read the terms. Millions of dollars are generated for wireless service companies from consumers. Changing a battery shouldn't be adding to these dollars unless you feel you can't change your own stupid battery.
81. Slammer (Posts: 920; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
Please read and learn the common problem on why I cannot endorse sealing batteries and why the industry is using propoganda to brainwash consumers. I also recommend sites such as phonearena to take notice as well since many of the reporters seem to celebrate sealed batteries. Until supercapacitors or another form of energy storage is developed, consumers are going to be raked over the coals.
83. thedarkside (Posts: 652; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
i dont like the sealed batteries either. what happens when your battery fails? you have to go through the manufactuer to get it replaced and nine times out of ten theyll label it as user error and not replace it. causing customers to pay for a new device, or, if they have insurance, pay a deductable to get a referb device. lame sauce.
84. Slammer (Posts: 920; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
Yes. It is lame sauce. I don't know why many more people on these sites don't get the MO here. Exchange of funds for a perfectly good device to recycle as a refurbished to unsuspecting consumers that just paid more for a refurbished phone on top of the original one they are still paying for on contract. Not a bad deal for service centers and insurance companies.
85. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
LG Prada...launched ....before the iPhone.....
HTC had a PMP with round corners....before the iPhone and iPod.
Thanks for playing tho.
59. stealthd (Posts: 910; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
The sky is the limit when it comes to the aesthetic design of a tablet. Samsung didn't lose their case just because they made a 'tablet', if they did then why hasn't Apple sued every company making tablets?
74. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Because only a few companies are SELLING a lot of tablets. Samsung is a financial threat, that is the point. If you took logos off of all the tablets and put them side by side, I bet you couldnt get 30% of them right by brand. The only difference between samsung and "everyone else", is that samsung owns the android playing field by a massive margin.
10. silencer271 (Posts: 149; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
I dont think any tech company owns sexy.
11. darkkjedii (Posts: 10048; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Samsung admits they copied/been inspired by apple, and should at least pay a little. Apple should also admit that they've copied/been inspired by android, take this small victory and call it a day. It's gotten silly now.
16. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
So Samsung has to pay Apple for copying a little but Apple doesn't have to pay anyone for copying a little themselves? Let me guess, your justification is Google hasn't sued Apple so Apple shouldn't pay them for their copying? How about all the lawsuits get dropped and the three of them do what they do best, make great products.
18. darkkjedii (Posts: 10048; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
PBX, you completely missed my point bro. Please re read my post.
19. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Then please explain it, it looks very one sided no matter how many times it's read.
21. darkkjedii (Posts: 10048; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
My point is, let this crap go, and get back to innovation. I am no fanboy, and do not enjoy all this litigation. That's why I said call it a day.
22. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
I agree with that, but forcing Samsung to pay for copying while Apple does more than it's own share isn't right. Be the bigger company, drop the lawsuit, and get back to being better business partners that become more successful when they work together.
25. jellmoo (Posts: 613; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
The reality though is that the lawsuit is already over, and we are talking only about the amount in damages. Apple *could* go and say that they agree with the lower amount Samsung is suggesting, but at the end of the day Apple still has to answer to its board and ultimately the shareholders. They might not like that notion so much.
43. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Unfortunately greed often wins in business deals. Shareholders who think they can run organizations like Apple are misguided. There's a big difference than trying to tell a company what to do because you have X amount of stock versus actually sitting in a leadership chair and running the company, being accountable on a daily basis for actually being in charge.
62. elitewolverine (Posts: 1102; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
It is more than that however. Precedent set in damages will prove how much those patents are worth.
The more they get in damages, the more they can charge for patents for usage.
Of course they want to pay 52million because that means when Samsung is paying royalties on patents, they are paying much much less....
There is greed on all sides. GREED IS GOOD. Greed is only bad when you are actually hurting someone, they are hurting no one. Unless you take physical and emotional damage because poor old Samsung is paying for a patent they do not own.
67. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Greed is never good, you've been watching way too much Wall Street. Greed is killing smaller businesses, and large corporations charging customers far too much for items. Greed is what causes sharholders to think they know better than the people who run the companies they hold stock in. Ultimately greed is what stifles competition.
72. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
That's not true in the least. You've been brainwashed to think that.
Greed is GREAT. Without greed, we'd be dead as a species. Any time you say "I want", your being greedy. Any time you eat more than you need to survive, your being greedy. Any time you take a pay raise, your being greedy.
In order to GIVE to others, you first have to GET. Without greed there is no compassion.
75. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. You can get without greed, and you can have compassion without greed. And you can even want without it being greed. Greed is when it becomes excessive, and that's where the problem begins. Greed starts wars, and takes advantages of others, and many other negative things. Sorry, you'll never convince me greed is great, or even good for that matter.
17. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Exactly, DJ. Take the 52 million and call it a day. Sure, your app store also created the "play store" and "WP store", but you should own exclusive rights to a style of content delivery. This is just stupid.
20. darkkjedii (Posts: 10048; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Re read post #18, and replace his name with yours
23. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
I'm still getting out of it the same I did the first time. We both agree Samsung should pay a small fee for "borrowing" a design. Now both companies should just move on and call it a day.
24. 14545 (Posts: 1052; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
My point, which seems to be the same as yours, is that both companies "borrow" or "steal" designs, and only one goes around and tries to sue everyone out of existence. (well, until recently with nokia attempting to do some of the same)