Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Common practice
by maccouch on Wed 8th Aug 2012 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
Member since:

thom, i think you are confusing and mixing up two different subjects. One is software patents, as the "slide to unlock" stuff, which is BS and completely ridiculous as to how was that patented to begin with.

The other, which is not so ridiculous is the "trademark dress" / "design patent" (not sure which is the difference between them, could some one explain that to me? ).

the trademark dress basically says that the "non-functional" stuff of an object as colours, shapes, general design can be protected from competitor that basically do and equivalent object with the exact (or close) combination of elements. As far as i understood this is what apple and samsung are mainly discussing in the corthouse.

In that area, the technological stuff or invented it first doesn't matter, what matter is the look and feel of the item and if the general look is so close to one another as to confuse the customer. It's not only the green dial button or the square with the round edges, it's the combination of all those and if the competitor couldn't have done differently.

In portuguese flea markets / gipsy fairs 10 years ago, you could just go there and get a really cheap set of jeans "Lewis 5001" or "Leeh something" which were practically identical to the expensive Levis and Lee jeans. this is what court process is all about and what many comenters are saying to you. it's not about the technological inventions/patents (i'm not sure if there is any software patent stuff there? ) but about the way some samsung devices were built to resemble really close apple's, although they could have done it in a million times different, as the other android devices have been done.

just a quick anecdote. the other day i entered a technological shop and took a glance at a samsung galaxy 10.1" (this here: ) that was off. My first thought was: wow, this actually looks much more like an ipad than i thought, the black bezel, the metalic rounded rim sligthly higher than the glass. But then i picked it up. The metalic rim was actually grey colored plastic. And the back was white plastic. not whole but most of it. The grey plastic just bented to the back and suddenly it was painted white/different plastic piece.

Now can you honestly state that this wasn't made so that the front looked really like an ipad (when disconected)? they even put a plastic looking like metal the same exact way as apple does. but then on the back they just dis-harmoniously slapped together the white back. So which is it? is it black and metal or is is white? Either samsung has the worst designers in the whole world or this was slapped together to get the look of the ipad. And that, look and feel, are protected by trademark law. You may not agree with it but it works that way.

so, separate the software patents from the trademark design lawsuits. different stuff, different reasoning, different laws.

by the way, i took a brief glance of the first pages of the document you mentioned in the post, didn't saw anything incriminating there aparte from the slide mentioned in the article (126 - visual interaction) , but they state that the design must be differentiating enough so no harm there. everything else is mainly functional stuff as font size and placement of overlapping menus. they are functional items, so no trademark issue there. but IANAL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Common practice
by Soulbender on Wed 8th Aug 2012 12:34 in reply to "RE[7]: Common practice"
Soulbender Member since:

And that, look and feel, are protected by trademark law. You may not agree with it but it works that way.

So why isn't this trial about trademark infringement then?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Common practice
by maccouch on Wed 8th Aug 2012 12:42 in reply to "RE[8]: Common practice"
maccouch Member since:

from this verge article: (

"So while Apple started off in full assault mode with a colossal list of trademarks, trade dress registrations, design patents and technical utility patents in its complaint, everything has been trimmed back for trial: all of its trademark claims have been dismissed, only one registered and limited unregistered trade dress claims remain, and the patent infringement allegations have been reduced to four design patents and three utility patents."

[how does one get links here? ]

Reply Parent Score: 2