Apple's Entire Case Against Samsung In One Image

Did you hear about the latest Apple versus Samsung patent development in [INSERT COUNTRY]? Judge [INSERT NAME] ruled that [Apple/Samsung] had to stop selling [INSERT PRODUCT] because it infringed on [Apple/Samsung]'s patent on [INSERT VAGUE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION]. You didn't hear? Well who can keep up anyway? For those who need a refresher, here's one of Apple's basic claims against Samsung boiled down into a single image.

Before the iPhone, Samsung smartphones were ugly and horrible. After the iPhone, they're beautiful iPhone clones. Case closed? Someday, someone will decide for sure. [Twitter]


Comments

    I honestly don't believe that Apple is getting away with suing a company based on looks and I cannot believe that it's being allowed. Looks shouldn't have anything to do with anything, unless it is software realted, that I can understand to a degree but the phone looks like ours...what phone doesn't look like another phone these days? I wish this would be thrown out into the rubbish where it belongs, it's wasting the courts' time.

      The article is so childish, probably, by a apple fanboy. In 2007, Samsung had a model F700, http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php. Where this design came from? If Apple has to sue for design, they should go after those fake iphone makers in China, or the China Government, which does nothing on this pirates! Samsung is a threat for them and thats why, they are after them...! But, after Apple's this quarter financial reporting, it looks like, Apple has losts its edge long back! It is a one shot wonder. From 2007 to 2012 - 5 years, the design did not change at all! Only th e casing has changed! a bit more power and some progressively superior screen! But Samsung has done groundbreaking designs, they really work hard to win people! Note, Nexus, Galaxy Series, they are all tech marvels! They concurrently work on 100 models and they improve everyone of them! Not like Apple! Just one model! Time to retire Apple, if they do not change soon!

        Fragmentation vs. Unity

          Evolution favours diversity.

            I wish I could thumbs up this post.

            +1

        Raj, if you actually looked at the phone you just posted you'd realise that it's completely different.. it has a slide out keyboard.

        "The design has not changed in 5 years" Take a look at the first Iphone.. then the Iphone 4S, you've got to be a crabby blind old man not to be able to see the difference.

        Quit being a belligerent goat.

      Why don't we take a look at images of phones from competing brands BEFORE the iphone? I'm sure they all looked the same and no one gave a crap back then. Same goes with TV's or anything else... apple needs to get over it and push on with their own game !!

      I have 3 x 42" TV's at home. A Sony, a Panasonic, and an LG. The only way i can tell them apart is by the manufacturers logo.
      I own an iphone and a Galaxy Nexus. They look nothing alike.
      I will NEVER buy another Apple product on principal.
      Anyways, articles like these are written to encourage trolling and generate hits.

    Yes someone will decide on day and it will be the consumer.. my guess is that consumers don't really care if they look similar it's they way that the device works that will have people lean to one platform or the other. It's just like any competing products out there, they're going to have similarities in design or content... Ford and Holden, Coke and Pepsi, Mac OS and Windows you get the idea...

    No slant in this 'article' is there?

    Two words: LG Prada

    That is all.

      Not to mention HTC and Huawei. Hell, even Blackberry has a phone that looks like that! Surely they're not being ignored just because they aren't threatening Apple's market share? And then there's the Google Nexus - albeit also a Samsung, but a bespoke one. Apple should be suing Google too, because they put their name on a phone that looks the same!

      My thinking exactly, but I suppose the idea is that this is meant to be a representation of Apple's point of view or at least the idea that they're trying to push, so that's why it's slanted.

        Apple fanbois will continue to vehemently defend their beloved fruit, and will continue to think up half-arsed "evidence" to support their arguement.

      I believe Gg's point was that the iPhone looks a LOT like the LG Prada, which was actually *before* the iPhone.

    do the same infographic for motorised transport before AND after the first successful auto mobile and think where we'd be if innovation on that design had also been stifled by a cashed- up heavy handed legal team.

    So if Apple win this case does that mean ford can take every other motor company to court because after Model T every car looked the same (pretty much, four wheels and a box on top) forever?

    Excerpt from Wikipedia - "The Model T was introduced on October 1, 1908. It had the steering wheel on the left, which every other company soon copied".

    Henry Ford was a flaming antisemitic and I still like him more than Tim Cook.

      Ford wouldn't have a case, but the family of the guys who made the first car to operate like modern ones (ie, stick to shift gears, pedal for accelerator and pedal for brakes) might.

      But really, how can you mistake one for the other in a store, THEY ARE IN BOXES, and are labeled clearly with the product name when on display(trying to make a product look like a competitors to deliberately have them be mistakeable could just as easily bite you in the ass and cause someone after your product buy the one you copied by mistake).

        The motor car as a whole was never patented, but Henry Ford patented the idea of the production line. Your feeble attempt at a very poor simile has fail. If Samsung were trying NOT to copy Apple or RIM or Sony, they have constantly failed, miserably. Funny 'bout that, ay.

    funny that they mention about copying and stuff
    apple success came from copying xerox machine and mouse design

    ironic much?

      Apple copied and stole a lot more than Xerox ideas. A LOT MORE but yet everyone seems to forget that fact during these court cases and when talking about Apple. It's time that a clued on Judge stands up and says to Apple "Wait a minute, you're saying this company copied you? I have examples of you copying other companies. Get lost Apple"

      I'm pretty sure you'll find Xerox got paid.
      I'm pretty sure you'll find Samsung pay royalties to Microsoft.
      I'm pretty sure this will go away when Samsung pay Apple.

        Are you sure Xerox got paid because the story is? Steve Jobs stole it and never paid any royalties for it

        You'd be wrong, Xerox did not get paid. The idea that Samsung coppied the external design though is wrong, external designs evolve and this was a look that had already been out in the wild before Apple came along with their version.
        Trying to patent an aesthetic is dodgy, but patenting an aesthetic that you didn't come up with is beyond wrong.

          No, you sir are wrong, but thats a constant with you. Xerox were give $100 million in Apple stock in exchange for 3 visits to the PARC labs. Technology was shared with Apple. Xerox never went ahead with the PARC computer project, and most of the Xerox PARC engineers went to work for Apple. They then developed Mac OS. Xerox protested, went to court, and lost given the fact they were remunerated with shares in return for the technology. If it were so important to Xerox, then why did they drop it? Fail all 'round. Don't cry.

            Don't let facts get in the way of morons telling their stories. Well done Kroo.

            This is gold. I'm thinking a kind of performance art. "Don't cry".

            I'm sorry Kroo, but the story was never as straightforward as that, or else it would not have become such a popular them. This is the version calculated to most soothe the sore sphincter of the most dedicated Apple fanboi.
            Try a soothing prescription cream application instead.

              Preparation H may solve many of your problems, but good luck
              rewriting history with it. Fact is, Xerox got paid. If it suits you
              to believe something else, I'm agnostic, I'm cool with that. But
              claiming that's "wrong" won't change the facts. And back to where I
              started: this problem will go away immediately if Samsung pay
              Apple. It has now become apparent that the asking price is $24 a
              unit, which is much more than Android vendors are currently paying
              Microsoft. Therein lies the rub.

    This is a really old image, and it was thoroughly debunked before. As someone above points out: LG Prada.

    God I'm sick of Apple and these bullshit patents.

    Funny that all this image only show the Android based devices. What about all of Samsung's other touch screen phones. Also this image shows phone well before the iphone and not at the time the iphone was lanuched. If apple really weant to prove that samsung was copying them. So us an image of a phone just before the iphone was released

      It also misses the old Windows Mobile Omnia lines (of which my housemate is inexplicably a fan) and their Bada OS lines. Although I believe these product came out just after the iPhone. I still think design patents are retarded, it's not like any company is going to accidentally emblazon another brand name onto their box and have both a salesperson and a customer miss it. Apple in going for simplicity has attempted to patent GENERIC.

    This just confirms my hatred towards Apple. Yes, they make great looking designs of their products, but functionality wise, it's taking 5 steps backwards. Who produces an iPhone that can't Bluetooth properly or forced to use the same ringtones as everyone else? Innovate Apple and stop suing everyone under the sun because you can't have the market to yourself!

      Yeah because limiting the amount of ringtones you can choose from is pretty important...haha get real

        It is though. Seriously, that American Beauty tone goes off and half the train reach for their phone.

          You know theres an app for that..

    Watch 2001: A Space Odessey.
    There is an iPad in that movie.......

    Its got nothing to do with the "after iphone" point in time. Its the "After Touch Screen UI" point in time.
    There are only so many ways you can make a phone look WITHOUT buttons thats rectangular.....

      Freaking Star Trek P.A.D.D. in one of it's incarnations for extra zing.
      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD.jpg

    I know several people that brought the original Samsung Galaxy thinking they where buying the iPhone 3G. I know it sounds stupid, but to a non tech head it may not be that stupid. Just like some people can't tell cars apart. Ferrari and other car companies most certainly have pantents on the shape of their cars.

      Really?
      It has nothing to do with having tech in your head, there's a fat label across the front of the screen that says SAMSUNG

        I think you know several dummies. The sign said samsung not iphone. May be it is time to change your friends since several of them cant tell between two distinct phones.

      I have no doubt, most sheeple use "iPhone" and "smartphone" interchangeably, as though the iPhone is the only smartphone. The important question, though, is whether or not the sheeple you know were happy with their Samsungs?

        You know, it's amazing how many people say iPad when they mean tablet. Most just get sold an iPad straight out because that's what they asked for, but it always throws me off when a customer asks about the OTHER iPads in the cabinet by the notebooks (our Android tablet display case). Just goes further to show that Apple have marketed themselves into a generic company.

          The amount of time I have heard people say "I have got one of those iPhone's" and they actually have an Android handset.

      Seriously, were these people on something? It has Samsung written right there on the front! Did they not deal with a member of staff, did they not read the sales blurb beside the phone on display. Nobody can be that ridiculously ignorant and blindly drop hundreds of dollars on a device without reading anything. I'm sure you would need to be deaf, dumb and blind to achieve this one and even then you'll be too busy being awesome at pinball to care about the phone you are sporting :-)

        This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

          MotorMouth takes extreme pride and pleasure in using the word 'sheeple' in every sentence. He feels that if he uses it often enough and 'casually', it won't look childish. It doesn't work.

        I always joked with my last manager about doing bulk stacks of tablets/other small and expensive things. Always tickled his pickle.

      Then they are stupid.

      If you cant tell cars apart then bring someone who can.

      If you 'think you are doing something', maybe you should stop until you 'know'

        Not as convinced, as you are, that this is the case. I think there are a huge number of people who are indeed this ignorant.

      I call bullsh!t. Knowing one person that stupid is possible I guess, but several??? Sorry, not buying it.

    Haha, it looks like a pretty closed case. I'm still tossing up whether or not to switch to the new samsung 3s, or to just wait for the apple 5 to come out.

    Using this logic shouldn't LG sue Apple for ripping off the original design on the KE850? Stupid Apple fanboys....

    Of course, this image conveniently shows only those Samsung phones that do resemble an out-of-date version of the iPhone. It would be just as easy to find half-a-dozen Samsung Smartphones that look nothing like any iPhone. Two I have owned spring to mind - Wave and Focus - but I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that make this image look incredibly biased.

    um, fair few people though that the Palm Pilots looked similar to the original iPhone, but no one gave damn. You could say the Samsung phones before the iPhone looked like odd shaped Blackberry's, doesn't mean you could sue like crazy over it.
    Considering the branding of Apple and the fact that what ever store you go into, the iPhone is sectioned off in a big empty space where you could not possibly mistake it for something else and the staffers always say "iPhone, iPhone, iTunes, iPhone" while you're signing up for one make it pretty obvious that you're getting an iPhone or not.
    I am a Galaxy S2 user, and none of my friends, be them techy or not, have never mistaken it for an iPhone. Main reason? The size of it. the screen is huge on it.
    The problem with the picture above is that it doesn't take size perspective into account and misleads people involved in the case to assume that the phones made by Samsung are the same dimensions as well.
    The Android OS is now build around touch screen and Samsung did not influence the way Google would like you to use your phone. It just comes like that, Samsung skin it with TouchWiz, they build the phone with the dimensions of the screen being different.
    Apple; shut the hell up.

    If this image was a real case, then only one car company would be allowed to make vehicles with 4 wheels, one manufacturer could make TVs with square displays, and one company making fridges with doors....

    How about a picture of iPhone and Samsung prior to Januarry 2007 ??????????

      2006 - have a look at the samsung proposed products and the actual submissions to the case - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518
      Who is copying who

    Ok I am going to say that Apple copied Samsung by making a phone since they didn't have one before 2007 and Samsung did!
    That's how stupid this whole thing is.

    The Market adapts.. it always has...its called evolution.

    the reason phones before iphone were ugly is because the other companies were giving people what they want, a physical keyboard and practicallity
    No one wanted to type on a screen, it was hard and slower and not what people were used to.

    iphone came out and told people what they want, full touchscreen and no physical keys.

    I actually remember saying that this was not going to last. Now with improved auto correct, people can almost touch type on a screen without looking.

    So yes, iphone did a good job through marketing changing peoples view of touchscreens and the rest followed

    I thought the image was meant to sum up the entire case? I've loosely followed this series of B$ suits going back and forth, and I do know that Apple has '1' loosely defined design patent for the iPhone.

    So loosely defined they tried (and failed) to get the Judge in the US to keep aspects of said ill-defined patent from the jury.

    I think that in a market where aesthetics is such a massive factor, its not at all unreasonable for apple to fight for their design. The way this differs from the motoring industry is that cars have so much more room to make defining changes to set themselves apart from the market. The fact of the matter is that prior to the iPhone; nothing looked like or functioned the way that it does. Apple most definately does have a case, whether against just samsung or google who made the copycat operating system. They have a right to protect their designs.

    All I can say is Samsung and Google better sue Apple when they release their smaller screen IPAD. Surely Apple is copying Their design.

    Just so you all know I just patented Toilet paper you all better find another way now to wipe your arse.

      I printed out that comment and used it instead.

        I patented your comment and used it instead.

    what about this:
    http://gemssty.com/2006/10/29/top-10-copycat-cars/
    Based on a lot of the above reasonings, these copy-cat chinese cars are legal and should therefore be allowed in the market.

      How does a Samsung Galaxy/S II/Nexus have interchangeable parts with an iPhone, as per the first example in the link? Let alone screen sizes, software, connectivity. Not to mention they only have glass on the front. Four buttons and a switch on an iPhone, compared to four buttons, two capacitive buttons and no switch (at least for the S II). It just doesn't hold water on closer inspection compared to ripoff chi-cars.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now