Hacker News Reader

Comment by deminature | Hacker News Reader

That's a pretty big over-simplification of the case - at least for the tablet aspect of the case, the iPad and the subsequently released Samsung competitor were so visually similar that even Samsung's legal defence team were unable to distinguish between then without turning them on [1].

Apple may have overstepped their bounds fairly obviously with some claims, but the case was not entirely without merit.

[1] http://gizmodo.com/5849803/even-samsung-cant-tell-the-differ...

View on HN

His quote was "at this distance." And, without providing the distance specified, the article proceeds to blow the quote out of proportion. Shitty reporting anyone?

The Reuters article (which Gizmodo re-blogspammed) says the distance was 10 feet:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-l...

  "Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's
   tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass
   tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could
   identify which company produced which.

   'Not at this distance your honor,' said Sullivan, who stood at a
   podium roughly ten feet away."

Something is very fishy about that incident. They aren't even the same aspect ratio. Either Koh held them at a strange angle or Sullivan has a problem with his sight. I don't believe that anybody who is familiar with the devices would not be able to tell them apart at 10 feet. The Samsung even has SAMSUNG written on the front, and Apple have a giant Apple icon on the back.

The issue is as you would guess a strategic one.

If he had answered the question definitively and been correct it wouldn't have aided his case, as it would have only reaffirmed what already was his case. If however for any reason he got it wrong, he would be fired and probably never work again. People's brains aren't that reliable. I know the difference between the tablets and I wouldn't stake my whole career on which was which if I was put on the spot. It's just not smart.

It's Gizmodo, they probably just popped open a bottle of champagne now that you promoted them to "reporting, albeit shitty".

IANAL, but, so what? If you build a stapler using your own internal mechanisms for stapling, and I design my own stapler with my own internal mechanisms, I'm infringing on your ideas just if they both look like staplers from 10 feet away? Or if Firestone patents a certain type of tire, I can never invent my own tire because, from a distance, they both look like tires?

The central point of the tablet part of the case brought against Samsung was that they had deliberately attempted to confuse customers intent on purchasing an iPad, into purchasing their product instead, while still thinking they were actually purchasing an iPad, by making them visually difficult to distinguish from one another.

I don't necessarily agree with either side and I am also NAL, but when the case hangs on visual recognition, the ability of the legal team to tell the product they are defending apart from their competitors' probably becomes relevant as a microcosm of Apple's contention.

This is about the visual aspect. The accusation is that Samsung deliberately mimicked the look of the iPhone at the time in a bid to cynically confuse consumers at point of sale. That they changed the interface of the OS too is a smoking gun. It's like copying someones homework, but just swapping a few key words and sentences and claiming the work was entirely your own. I agree the question should be asked, I don't necessarily agree with the way Apple chose to ask it, but that is neither here nor there. They feel aggrieved, they are legally entitled to pursue this how they see fit. The "its just a rounded rectangle" argument is reductio ad absurdum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com