Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT

Looking like out of depth on this. Time for a clued up judge perhaps? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT

Link?



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT

You can hardly blame Samsung for having a very close look at every photo Apple submits. They messed up big time in Germany. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT

Phones are customized for carriers, so it is likely that different carrier

versions of the same phone would have different home screens out of the box. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT





Whether the Google box appears on the home page will be a decision made by

carriers not by Samsung or Android. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT

Okay, it's unlikely I know, but the date on a device is VERY rarely correct

"out of the box". I just set up a new camera for my daughter and the

date was 01-jan-12 00:00 until I setit up correctly.



But I seriously think Samsung need to get a whole load of court orders from

other cases about Apple and dump them on Koh as "background reading".



Cheers,

Wol [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT

Looked at the links with the pictures and the ones with out google search on the

home page is not the same phone as the one with the search on the home page.They

have different buttons across the bottom. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tz on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT

I love my Samsung Galaxy Player 5.0, and it looks almost like a phone, but it

doesn't have that magnifying glass search button. Why would you need a widget

if you have a button that brings up the same thing? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT

If any.





---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT

Please make any links clickable.



---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT

Please include a link to the article you are referencing. ---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT





---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT

What would be the options to MoFo, after being confronted with pictures that are

doctored by Apple? Mind you, I'm not saying Apple did present doctored pic's

right now, but they just might in the course of the case (wouldn't be the first

time). Would things like this have been discussed before MoFo accepted to take

Apple's case?

Just asking.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT

Yes, I think it is the mobile network operators who decide. OK, I am in the UK, and it might be different, but my HTC Legend, which I have just repaired*, displays a Vodafone logo while booting up, and has other unique features, including several icons and their default placement. It was accompanied by a Vodafone instruction manual and if I remember correctly came in a Vodafone box. On the other hand, my Huawei dual sim U8520, which I bought in Australia when the Legend broke, was sold as unlocked (good price too, at Dick Smith's) and behaves exactly as per the manufacturers instruction manual. * It broke last September because I tried to use an Australian Telstra SIM, to avoid paying the horrendous charges which Vodafone were going to apply, and it must have been slightly thicker than standard and strained the SIM retainer, so it was not pressing the SIM against the contacts properly. Finally, yesterday, I had nothing to do and used a screwdriver to bend the middle of the SIM retainer down, so it is always puting spring pressure on the SIM. Normal operation again! Oh, and well off topic, but just try getting an Australian SIM, or at least registering it and topping it up, unless you are, or know, an Australian citizen with driving licence and a utility bill! No doubt intended to prevent criminals using pay as you go phones, but a very real nuisance to visitors. Next job is to root the Legend, and get rid of the Vodafone branding. Some people really know how to annoy their customers, and sticking their brand on a phone is one way of doing it. Right now there are 45811 people accessing the xda-developers web site, which has 4,557,698 members so it is very clear that there are a lot of people dissatisfied with what their network has supplied them. I don't know of anywhere else, certainly not the Linux kernel, or any distro, which is within an order of magnitude of these numbers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT



Stock images from, PCWorld, Amazon, and The Android Invasion are your proof that

the judge is wrong? Really? It's not like those images couldn't be STOCK

IMAGES and not actually representative of what the user gets out of the box

because marketing never sends STOCK IMAGES that don't necessary represent what

the actual user gets.



PJ, **YOU** owe the judge an apology.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT

In the uk, i dont know of any shop that has these phones on the shelves. You

have to ask for the one you want, so the only confusion would be a retailer

giving you the wrong phone.

They have all the display models to look at to make sure you get the one you

want to, but anything you want they have to go out back and fetch. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT

From the Verge story: Samsung slammed by judge after accusing Apple of tampering with evidence

By Bryan Bishop on August 7, 2012 12:14 pm Ok so this report is dated Tuesday August 7th Things at Apple v. Samsung kicked off with a bang this morning, as Samsung accused Apple of tampering with the icon layout of one of its phones to look more like the iPhone. At issue is a photograph of the Epic Touch 4G that Apple presented which shows an icon layout that closely mirrors that of the iPhone. Samsung objected, saying that it noticed yesterday that the phone doesn't represent the state of the Epic 4G Touch out of the box. Samsung presented its own photo  which its attorneys said had been taken last night  which featured a different layout with a larger number of homescreens. (My emphasis) So the courtroom drama took place Tuesday morning concerning photographs claimed to have been taken the night before - which is Monday in most jurisdictions. She then pointed out that Samsung's image featured yesterday's [Monday's - indyandy] date  clearly indicating that the photo had not been taken on Sunday as alleged. Samsung's attorney eventually admitted he misspoke about the date. So I think this gives us this gives us the following options: The Verge got it wrong reporting when the photographs where declared to have been produced.

The judge mis-remembered the day and used that as yet another reason to castigate Samsung. The Samsung attorney admitted he misspoke because: He was unsure what he had said and apologised in case he had mis-spoken. He knew perfectly well what he had said but let it pass as the transcript would show yet more evidence of the judge's bias/competence issues for appeal.

Much as the reports of professional reporters are good I must say that I find the reports of Groklaw members are much better at clarifying details like this. I look forward to reading the transcript when it is finally released [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT

The home pages are totally configurable in terms of what widgets you put on

them. In fact the home page is a virtual desktop with a number of home pages.



I fail to see therefore, how it matters what widgets happen to be deployed on

the first screen "out of the box". [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BobinAlaska on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT

Lets see, Samsung said that:

1) the Google widget is on the phone out of the box; and

2) the photo was taken last night.



However, the photo that Samsung is parading as evidence of Apple's tampering

is inconsistent with both of these statements. I would hope the Judge would

question Samsung on this.



What technical mistake has the Judge made? She pointed out inconsistencies in

what Samsung told her. Seems to be me, her technical understanding is right

on with this one. And it is laughable to think that either one of the law firms



here do not have a deep technical understanding of these patents. Do you

really think that with the money is on the line here the the lawyers do not have



access to the best technical people available? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Kevin on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT

I can just foresee Apple's argument here: if the carriers control the screen

layout, then Samsung should still be held liable, because it didn't structure

the operating system in such a way as to forbid carriers - or for that matter,

end users - from configuring it to look too much like Apple's precious trade

dress. The fact that they didn't take active steps to prevent someone from

reskinning it is, of course, contributory or vicarious infringement.



Of course, taking such steps will mean either crippling the configurability, or

else having code that recognizes the protected screen layout and forbids

reproducing it. That code itself, of course, is an implementation of Apple's

trade dress in disguise, and will infringe unless it is licensed from Apple.





---

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT

Isn't this all about "look and feel"? And didn't we go through

all of this many years ago with Apple and MS et. al?

Why are we going through this again? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT

to ask if Apple's precious design patents indicate the radius

of the rounded corners.



I ask because every tangible rectangular object is going to

have rounded corners, even if the rounding isn't discernible

to the unaided eye.



So isn't Apple trying to claim a natural phenomenon as a

distinguishing design feature? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT

The placement of the G search changed with ICS.



Older versions had the G search widget seen in that photo, it's a normal widget,

usually found on the default launch screen though carriers can change that.



On ICS it's no longer a normal widget but a fixed element with reserved screen

space at the top of every page. Again carriers can change that. Not sure if

users can move it on stock ROMs, there are settings buried deep in the 3rd party

ROM I use that might not be standard.



I would guess Apple really did mess with the layout because virgin phones tend

to ship with either nearly empty home screens OR jam packed with flashy carrier

crud including the large widgets iPhone simply doesn't support. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT

The disagreement over whether the photo was taken on Sunday or

Monday is probably due to confusion arising from the time zone

difference between California (UTC-7) and Seoul (UTC+9).

Someone took a picture on Monday morning, sent it to Samsung

headquarters where it was Sunday evening and gets described as

having been taken on Sunday, and the description gets sent

back to California without a time zone correction. Seems

immaterial, and not something the judge should be getting

angry about. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT

You do not speak for me. I do not wish anyone the illness that comes from a

breakdown. And I do not feel such disrespect so as to speak so bad abut this

judge. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT

I was just thinking of prior art with respect to rounded corners. I don't

remember anyone mentioning this but if they did I'm sorry to repeat it.



I remember my first tablet having rounded and square corner models. It was the

pocket edition with rounded corners and the larger tablet had square corners. At

that time it was called Etch A sketch. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT

Goodness gracious me, how can we expect a fair trial here when

the judge appears to have no clue about the tech on trial, and

the lawyers for both sides appear incompetent in preparing

sound sensible briefs. Anybody who knows anything about

this industry, and that includes plaintiff and defendant, both

of whom ought to have informed their lawyers, knows that

what appears on the Android bootup screen is decided by the

vendor in the local market. He may choose to leave it as it comes

from factory, he may choose to customise it according to what he

wishes the local market to have.



Is everybody in the courtroom mesmerised by the iPhone where

the bootup screen is not varied by the vendor, it always

complies with the stone carvings on Mt Cupertino?



This case should be transferred to Alsup J.

He'll have it sorted before lunch.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT

The judge seems to be extremely biased towards apple. I am expecting apple to

win, but Samsung to have enough arguments for a mistrial. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT

I mean, icons, and other stuff that any user can easily customize. I read one

of the exhibits comparing the iphone to a samsung phone, and kinda can agree

with Apple's point about Samsung trying to make stuff look like an iphone, but

the question I have , is the idea of using different colors for the icons and

removing a border around them, protected by Apple's trade dress design patent?



How about changing the layout of of a calculator emulator when it is flipped

from portrait to landscape?



This kind of stuff seems so obvious that it can't be novel. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT

An interesting discussion of the Apple vs Samsung trial is taking place at the EE Times website. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT

A comment in another place got me musing: Apple has a dilema - it's design philosophy is simplicity, pureness, elegance- The iphone was certainly the first phone to simplify the look - a smooth touch screen interface devoid of busy buttons. But this also makes it difficult to patent. It is easier to patent complex buttons and shapes In PJ's previous piece she reported a comment that Chris Stringer, for example, was there to give testimony that Apple made the choices that it did to make a beautiful product, not for function alone. She also linked to this explanation of trade dress: Therefore, product design trade dress or other designs that cannot satisfy the inherent distinctiveness requirement may only become protectable by acquiring secondary meaning. Secondary meaning requires that the product design acquire an association in the public mind with the producer of the goods.



Under the functionality doctrine, trade dress must also be nonfunctional in order to be protected. If the element is functional, protection should be sought under patent law. What is functional depends upon the particular product. To be nonfunctional, it cannot affect a products cost, quality, or a manufacturers ability to effectively compete in a non-reputational way. For example, color is functional in regard to clothing because that product is purchased substantially because of its color and appearance, but color is not functional on household insulation, which is purchased purely to be installed in a wall and is never seen. In fact, courts have found that the color of certain building insulation constituted protectable trade dress. In another article, PJ mentioned two competing restaurant chains: "a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme." I remembered the English judge's comment that other phones just did not look as cool as the iPadPhone. I recalled the pivotal moments in Steve Job's debut presentation for his recent products. The first thing he did was slip the Apple MacBook Air out of a sleeve to show you how sleek it was and the quality appearance. There was a similar presentation of the iPhone and the iPad.



All these thoughts spun around my head like a baby's mobile. Other comments note that there is no possibility in most of Apple's markets for purchasers to be confused about whether they were buying Apple, or not because of the strict Apple retail rules.



Just in case the court does not come to that conclusion, let's consider Apple and trade dress. Apple products have a simplicity, pureness and elegance for a number of reasons.



The first is that colourful icons and lack of buttons and screen widgets makes use intuitive. ('If the element is functional, protection should be sought under patent law.')



The second is that the very appearance gives an impression of high quality. ('To be nonfunctional, it cannot affect a products cost, quality, or a manufacturers ability to effectively compete in a non-reputational way. For example, color is functional in regard to clothing because that product is purchased substantially because of its color and appearance.")



Finally, trade dress is all about non-functional decoration as with the Mexican restaurants. The only non-functional decoration I see on an iPhone and iPad is the rounded corners. The rest of the proposition fits in the clothing exclusion in the description of trade dress principles. So, it seems to me that Apple are suing Samsung for making a phone that has 'simplicity, pureness, elegance' and a lack of non-functional decoration or ornamentation, SCO sued for the use by IBM of negative knowledge. Now Apple sue Samsung for negative decoration. ---

Regards

Ian Al

Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT

To me whether samsung copied or not apple's design is

irrelevant. For individual design elements, the prior art is

abundant. Even if you consider them all together there are

examples that are very close, like the lg prada. Most of the

dial buttons on phones are phones in green or with green

background. All end call buttons are red. This is usability

design 101.



As for trade dress, much of the design of the phones in

question is functional:



1) a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners ->

Most of the phones are rectangular with rounded corners to

make them easy to hold in your hands and fit in a pocket.



2) a flat clear surface covering the front of the product;

Functional... display covers most of the phone surface and a

big display is functional. A curved cover over a lcd would

be difficult for the viewer



3) the appearance of a metallic bezel around the flat clear

surface; Ok, this one is aesthetics only AFAIK



4) a display screen under the clear surface; functional, see

2



5) a substantial back borders above and below the display

screen; FUNCTIONAL Hard buttons down close to your thumb and

speaker up close to your ear demand space at top and botton

of the phone



6) when the device is on, a row of small dots on the display

screen;



7) when the device is on, a matrix of colorful square icons;

When the samsung phones are on, the home screen is not just

a colorful matrix os square icons. It has widgets and icons.

Even if it were equal, this is functional. UI design 101

again. Colors helps us differentiate icons, matrix

arrangement helps us locate icons quickly. Icons can't be

too big or you are wasting space or to small or you'll have

trouble differentiating them. Size of the phone determines

how many rows and columns.



8) a bottom dock of colorful square icons. FUNCTIONAL

again... most common features like dial, contacts and

messages need to be available most of the time. Bottom close

to your thumb is the best place to place them.



The judge explained the task of the jurors related to trade

dress as being: Apples trade dress infringement claim will

require you to resolve different issues. You will need to

determine whether Apples trade dress had acquired

distinctiveness before Samsung started selling its accused

products, and whether Samsungs accused products are likely

to cause confusion about the source of Apples or Samsungs

goods.". Even if we consider the trade dress valid (I don't

because most of it is functional) I'd answer yes to the

first question but no to the second one: Very distinct logos

(Have you ever seen an apple product without the apple?),

splash screens when booting with samsung and android

animations and sound, and store placement are enough to make

it extremely hard to mistake them. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT

The thing the judge -should- be taking away from all this is that Software

doesn't make a Machine.



If I unbox a screw-gun I get the same thing every time.



If I unbox a smart phone I get whatever is on it, which is a feature set. Some

people have pointed out that the finial result of that unboxing may vary based

on what services and selections you have and make at the moment of unboxing.



Software is about the ever-mutable "now", and how that "now"

is intrpreted with respect to the inifinite "just before now".



We call these state machines. There is a state, and an input, and that nets a

new state. So now there is a state and an input, and that nets a new state. On

and on forever.



The operator and the operations are what allow for and indeed cause convergence.

I could make my linux box look very like my windows box if that's what I want to

converge.



So Apple has and interest in converging the smasung and apple phones, and

samsung has no such interest.



So we are, what? Amazed that one party deliberately or subconsciously converged

the appearance while another did not? No such amazement here.



So howdy judge, the correct ruling you should make is "this is clearly not

patent eligible since it's arbitrary and non/unfixed."



You might as well call a lump of clay to be in violation otherwise since it

-can- be configured to look and feel like an iPhone etc. User Interfaces on

"smart" devices are almost infinitely motile. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT

Judge Koh has got to go. She is clueless and also completely

incapable of handling this case as can be seen since this

whole fiasco started. [ Reply to This | # ]

