Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

Samsung DID straight up copy Apple. Apple isn't going after other manufacturers, just this specific one for these specific devices. Here's a little side-by-side comparison of what Samsung did: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga...

This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.

Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.

View on HN

You're confusing trademarks with patents. Trademarks are supposed to avoid consumer confusion. In fact, in trademark lawsuits it's required that you establish that there's consumer confusion, or else you have no case. It's common on these lawsuits that consumers are interviewed and asked if they're confused by the products. Apple would've done this if they had a trademark case against Samsung. In any other IP case which isn't trademark, pointing confusion, as in the Samsung lawyer example, is just a meaningless gimmick that serves no real purpose. [1] But Apple isn't suing Samsung for trademark infringement, they're suing for patents. Which means to stop Samsung for using Apple's technological "inventions". So your argument is invalid, Apple is not trying to establish confusion. They're going specifically after Samsung simply because they're by far the biggest target. And the examples in your blog are blatant cherry-picking. [2]

[1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/

[2] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/

You might want to do a bit of research on something called a "design patent".

Still, I think a patent only reaches functional aspects.

I would be just as surprised if you could patent a shade of green as if you could patent the meaning of a test result.

Design and functionality are interlinked.

And it is pretty common to trademark colours.

But trademarks aren't a part of this lawsuit, are they?

The point is that if Apple was suing under trademarks they would have done things differently, but don't appear to be doing so, probably because patents have wider protections than trademarks do.

You can trademark a color in a certain context, but I doubt you can trademark the color and then enforce general ownership rights to it.

After all even in more specific contexts, I seem to remember 'Gel Cel' being impermissibly generic as a trademark.

You might want to read before posting. There are no design patents being used in the Galaxy Nexus ban. Their argument is Samsung copied "unified search".

The person you were replying to was talking about the Galaxy tab which did infringe on Apple's design patent.

Lets at least compare the products in question. The link in your comment compares the Galaxy Tab 7 to the iPad 2, and even then is making its comparison based on very old pictures. I went to Samsung's and Apple's website and downloaded images of the home screen of the products in question.

Quick side by side job-

Tab10 vs iPad: http://i.imgur.com/3jnEf.png

Galaxy Nexus vs iPhone: http://i.imgur.com/eZAyj.png

You are free to choose which you think looks "better" but the design is not even similar. One is made of glass of and aluminum, the other of glass and plastic. The differences between the the Galaxy Nexus and the 4s is even more striking. My comparison doesn't go a good job of showing the scale but they are no where near the same size either.

If you really want to compare old and completely unrelated devices, have a look at this picture that made its rounds on Google+ during the #boycottapple time: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nMgzXpDyNhA/Ta3iBWUo3bI/AAAAAAAAM1...

Nice work there detective. Unfortunately that Galaxy you showed is the 10.1n which is the modified version to make it deliberately look different than an iPad.

Here is the "original" Galaxy Tab.

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/...

That does look a little more iPady... However, I'm assuming that this (the 10.1n) is the model that most retailers are currently selling, and that Apple was sending letters to stop the sale of... The more salient point and the injunction that has been since been reversed is for the Galaxy Nexus which is in no way similar to the iPhone 4s.

Unrelated, who uses a tablet from 10 ft away anyway?

Grow up.

The simple fact is this: 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.

This is similar to how Scott toilet paper completely copied Charmin toilet paper.

Exhibit A, a Scott toilet paper roll:

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4937842907021398&pid=1.5

Exhibit B, a Charmin toilet paper roll:

http://www.coloredtoiletpaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01...

Also, I usually like to shop for rolls by unpackaging them, placing them side by side, stepping back 20 meters and just staring at them from the other side of the store, and now I was totally confused as to which was which. I don't understand why more people aren't up in arms about this. Scott clearly had the intent to copy Charmin's paper-around-roll design philosophy. The world needs more patents to prevent this.

There are toilet paper patents: http://www.onemanclapping.org/2009/01/patents-toilet-paper.h...

None of these are about the paper-around-the-cylinder design. Clearly it is needed so that we can promote innovation in the roll shape. Why can't Scott opt for a rectangular (prism) roll?

It's easy to see that they copied on the software side, but there are only so many ways you can distinguish a flat rectangle while making it useful for its intended function. Not everyone is willing to take a huge leap like with the nice-looking and distinct Lumia 900.

As for the box, I like Samsung's. All apple did was plaster a picture of the iPad on the front of a box.

The galaxy nexus is a stock android device, no such UI modifications from samsung are present here. Instead, apple is going after device-wide search and some other ridiculous patents.

Well, I don't know much about the actual lawsuit, but in order to get back into compliance Samsung has rolled out an update that disables the search function from searching the actual phone. That's right, Apple has somehow patented a text-based search of the items on a device. What a brilliant, non-obvious idea! Right up there with the light bulb. I deserves a government-sanctioned, and protected, monopoly!

Your comment made me laugh so hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com