Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th May 2011 17:23 UTC, submitted by John
Legal In order to not overwhelm OSNews with even more legal news, I didn't report on the recent developments in Apple v. Samsung until we had some more stuff to consolidate. Well, since the goings been getting good lately there, let's talk about it. Samsung was ordered to hand over a slew of unreleased products and materials to Apple, and now, Samsung, for its part, has demanded that Apple hands over the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 to Samsung. If they exist. This is gettin' good.
Thread beginning with comment 474985
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not about fairness so much..
by tupp on Sun 29th May 2011 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Not about fairness so much.."
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

Many things wrong with your understanding of this situation ...

Certainly, someone's understanding of the situation is incorrect (probably clouded by the RDF).


1) Apple does not get to 'have' any unreleased products. They will be able to have their attorneys look at these products in a room with Samsung attorneys.

It is irrelevant as to who from Apple views the products. For this forced disclosure to make sense, the representatives from Apple will have to understand the essence of Samsung's products, whether the Apple reps are lawyers, engineers or janitors.

I would hope that a very restrictive NDA is implemented.


2) The Samsung products in questions have already been displayed and in some cases given to journalists and such so these are not 'secrets' of Samsung. I

If so, why does Apple need to see the products? They have already been disclosed.


3) Apple is litigating on the basis that Apple's current products are being copied by Samsung's current AND future products.

A lawsuit regarding what the defendant is thinking about the future has a very weak basis. However, with some of the crazy decisions that courts have made lately, any outcome is possible.


You can't sue someone for copying a product that no one has seen unless you're claiming you trade secrets were stolen, which Apple is not.

You can sue someone because their eyes are blue, but that doesn't mean you will win the case.

Furthermore, patents require disclosure, but copyrights do not. So, you could have a strong case by suing a second party for infringing on your copyright-protected software, that no one else has ever seen before.

In most jurisdictions, a patent gives someone the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. So, if Apple is suing in regards to its patented technology, then it can stop Samsung from merely making any infringing prototypes or production models.

Ideally, the most compensation Apple could get in such a case would be limited to court costs and attorneys' fees. However, if Samsung sold/distributed infringing techonology or used the technology, then Apple could/should get additional compensation.

Design patents are probably a little different, because they rely on someone's subjective judgement on whether one design is like another design, and they also rely on the judge's sense of design history. I imagine that the judge(s) will have to be informed by Samsung about Apple's design banality and Apple's unabashed copying of others.

Don't really see ho Apple could win much of anything if it base its claims on Samsung's mere intent for future products (which includes drawings and other visual mock-ups). But, again, in these crazy times, anything is possible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

One of these 'unreleased' products is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 which was given away to thousand of people at Google IO.

It's by no means a secret product.

It's just not released and so Apple cannot legally obtain one and present it as a piece of evidence to support their litigation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

One of these 'unreleased' products is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 which was given away to thousand of people at Google IO... It's just not released and so Apple cannot legally obtain one and present it as a piece of evidence to support their litigation.

Then Apple can have one brought into open court.

There is no need to have a separate disclosure meeting that includes other products.

Reply Parent Score: 2

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

The judge ordered Samsung to hand over their upcoming products, despite such products already having been publicized, so that details about them can be entered as evidence. Web magazine articles are not suitable to the task - they need the real thing (so take off the tinfoil hats).

Further, Apple needs to know design details about upcoming products so they can ask the court for an injunction against their sale before they hit the market, rather than after. Apple's position is that they have been ripped off, and they want the court to stop the culprit from profiting by it. If Samsung's new batch of phones could escape the current suit without any relevant changes from the current models, what would be the point of suing? Apple can't ask the court simply to order Samsung out of the business. They need to know specifically which models (are going to) look how much like an iPhone. That's just how legal action works.

None of that was commentary on the actual merits, but I will say that while I don't think Apple should be the only company allowed to make a wedge that's mostly just a screen, I do think Samsung and Android are lazily copycatting. Microsoft makes software for screen-wedge-phones with a significantly different interface, while other Android phones have used a variety of physical inputs, Blackberry remains distinctive, and the Palm Pre is truly differentiated both in software and hardware as the rare vertical slider with a full keyboard. No one has to make something that's just like an iPhone for functionality's sake.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I do think Samsung and Android are lazily copycatting... No one has to make something that's just like an iPhone for functionality's sake.

I don't think so.

The LG Prada was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first introduced. The Iphone design is uncannily similar to the Prada. So, if anyone has been copied, it is Apple copying LG.

However, I doubt that Apple copied the Prada design entirely, as most design elements are fairly obvious and minimal with current touchscreen devices -- you have a touchscreen and a bezel. You might have an actual button or two. That's it. That's the whole idea behind touchscreen devices.

So, Samsung is not really copying anyone. It is just designing what is obvious.

Edited 2011-05-30 00:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3