Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis
thisismynext.com
thisismynext.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...
http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable...
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.
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...).
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.)
[1] Conceptually and originally at least.
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.
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.
Looks very similar from the outside, and was definitely demoed before the iPhone.
In fact, from a 2007 report:
> One analyst asked the executives whether they plan to sue Apple as some reports have suggested over design similarities with the iPhone: LG executive Chang Ma replied: "Should we? (laughs) Obviously, we are introducing this touch screen first [since the Prada phone will be available in Europe next month]... we are much more faster realizing and launching products in the market [than Apple]. But LG is targeting a different customer than Apple."
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/lg-prada-shine-windows-m...
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... ]
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?
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.
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.
However i should correct the date till 350 B.C.
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.
That tower in Dubai? Guess who built it.
I don't know the details of if the deal broke last minute, but that's what I'd read.
UPDATE: More here -- http://www.slashgear.com/lg-and-samsung-ipad-screen-shipment...
It's placing pressure on Samsung to "toe the line" and "deliver our components, not your own products".
On the other hand, there is no chance that Samsung will shut down its phone division, whether or not Apple wins the lawsuit.
So I cannot understand how you got the impression that Apple is making this lawsuit in order to annoy Samsung into not competing. That is a much less likely explanation for the suit.
Samsung may not shut down their phone operation but this suit could make them re-evaluate the cost-benefit of Android phones... others have mentioned that this is a proxy lawsuit against Google, I'd agree.