Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of how these things work.
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.
Samsung certainly doesn't model itself after Apple. It just copies their product designs down to the packaging and marketing.
Of course, Borders went on to screw the pooch all by itself later, but that's a different story.
In that context I think it's damaging to Samsung as it's hard to say it doesn't show a little part of that picture, but obviously Apple will need a lot more to make the whole argument.
The implication is that the lawyer fucked up - that the memo was out of scope until he referenced it at which point the judge considered it fair game - but it's not 100% clear.
This very much seems like a misdirected argument, at least from the ethical perspective. The question isn't whether or not Samsung was trying to emulate the elements that made the iPhone a success, the question is to whether it should be allowed or not. A world where that kind of "copying" is disallowed isn't one I want to live in.
But that's not what this case is about.
Apple is claiming that Samsung copied their product's aesthetics to mislead consumers. That's why Apple is suing Samsung.
And truthfully, I don't want to live in a world where that sort of copying is allowed.
And to be clear: I'm fine with the idea that you can get a design patent on very narrow grounds to protect branding aspects that trademarks don't. Make Samsung change their plastic then. Don't use that as a springboard to argue they should be sued out of the market. That's just evil.
No, that's protecting the patent.
So yes, this is how the system works. Both sides putting in enormous effort over admissibility of minor documents, outcomes swayed by minor missteps.
You're right that it's a great parallel and perhaps even more so.
They've been excluded from the trial - Samsung's lawyers were late in submitting them.
http://www.blogcdn.com//media/2012/08/walkman8212.jpg
None of those products (iPod, Walkman, iPhone) would be confused for the other.
When you look at from a consumer's point of view, it looks pretty damaging. When you start to look at what Apple legally can prove, this memo is not that damning. Like you stated, it says they wanted to use a similar design and UX, but never stated they would copy it verbatim.
It's just not the smoking gun Apple attorney's are probably looking for.